AMD EPYC 4245P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split between these two processors. The AMD EPYC 4245P takes 8 wins, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H takes 9, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The most dramatic result comes from Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC 4245P scores 3757 against the Ultra 9's 2129.5, a 76.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The R15 single-core test reinforces the pattern, with the EPYC ahead by 20.8% (378 vs 313). In PassMark single-thread, the EPYC wins by a narrower 3.6% margin (4575 vs 4415). These results point to a substantial per-thread performance gap favoring the AMD part.

Multi-core results are more divided. The Intel chip wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 3177.5 vs 2682, a 15.6% lead. It also takes R20 multicore, scoring 12201 to 11179, an 8.4% edge. However, the EPYC flips the script in Cinebench R23 multicore, delivering 26618 versus 20781.5, a commanding 28.1% lead. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions suggests workload-dependent scaling characteristics.

The PassMark suite shows Intel's strengths in specific compute domains. Floating-point math is a landslide: the Ultra 9 scores 109190 against the EPYC's 57965, a 46.9% deficit for AMD. Prime number finding also favors Intel heavily, 330 vs 193, a 41.5% gap. Data encryption sees Intel ahead by 29.4% (26140 vs 18466). Extended instructions are essentially tied, with Intel up a marginal 0.9% (26794 vs 26547).

AMD counters in integer-heavy workloads. The EPYC wins PassMark integer math by 10.7% (95120 vs 85922). Data compression is nearly even, with the EPYC ahead by just 1.1% (339408 vs 335859). The EPYC also takes physics by 4.9% (2637 vs 2513) and random string sorting goes to Intel by 2.5% (40931 vs 39916).

The overall multithread score favors Intel, 34171 vs 31063, a 9.1% gap. Looking at aggregate averages, the EPYC 4245P posts an average benchmark score of 39215 with a 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Ultra 9 285H averages 38312, also at the 86th percentile. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS at 39325 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-13700F at 39009 (0.5% lower), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 at 39485 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS at 39603 (1% higher). The Ultra 9's closest competition includes the Intel Core 9 270H at 38335 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-13600HX at 38261 (0.1% lower), the Intel Xeon w3-2525 at 38392 (0.2% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 at 38221 (0.2% lower).

Architecture Differences

The architectural contrast between these two parts is stark. The AMD EPYC 4245P uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the codename Grado. It belongs to the EPYC 4005 series and targets the server and workstation market segment. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, specifically Arrow Lake-H, and targets the mobile segment.

Core counts differ dramatically. The EPYC offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ultra 9 provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Notably, the Intel part has no hyperthreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The EPYC's base clock is 3.90 GHz against the Ultra 9's 2.90 GHz, but both boost to 5.40 GHz. The power envelopes diverge: the EPYC has a 65 W TDP, while the Ultra 9 operates at 45 W.

Cache hierarchies reflect different design philosophies. The EPYC allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Ultra 9 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC's total L3 is larger at 32 MB versus 24 MB. Transistor count is listed only for the EPYC at 8,315 million on a 70.6 mm² die; no transistor or die size data exists for the Ultra 9.

Memory support differs in scope. The EPYC supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with a higher 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity heavily favors the EPYC: it provides Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, while the Ultra 9 offers Gen 5 with only 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the EPYC featuring Radeon Graphics and the Ultra 9 featuring Arc Graphics 140T.

Sockets and form factors are incompatible. The EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Ultra 9 uses Intel BGA 2049, a soldered mobile package. The EPYC launched on 2025-05-12 with a launch MSRP of $239. The Ultra 9 launched earlier on 2025-01-12 with a launch MSRP of $651. The EPYC's part number is 100-000001555, and the Ultra 9's is SRQAL. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear differentiation. For single-threaded performance, the AMD EPYC 4245P is the definitive choice. Its 76.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 20.8% lead in R15 single-core are decisive. The PassMark single-thread result, while narrower at 3.6%, still favors AMD. Applications that depend on high per-core throughput will see meaningful advantages with the EPYC.

For floating-point math, prime number generation, and encryption workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H dominates. The 46.9% lead in floating-point math and 41.5% lead in prime finding are substantial. Data encryption also swings heavily toward Intel at 29.4%. These are compute patterns common in scientific simulation, financial modeling, and cryptography.

The overall multithread picture is mixed. Intel wins the PassMark multithread test by 9.1% and Cinebench R15/R20 multicore, but AMD wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 28.1%. The R23 result is particularly notable because it is the most modern Cinebench version in the database. The EPYC's 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die, combined with its larger 32 MB L3 cache, may explain its strength in certain long-running multi-threaded workloads despite having only 6 cores versus 16.

The EPYC's higher 65 W TDP and server/workstation positioning, alongside 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s, make it suited for rack deployments and workstation builds. The Ultra 9's 45 W TDP and mobile BGA 2049 socket, with 8 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and support for both DDR5 and LPDDR5X at 102.4 GB/s, fit thin-and-light or mainstream laptop designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4245P wins all single-core tests in the database. It leads by 76.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core, 20.8% in R15 single-core, and 3.6% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD EPYC 4245P has 6 cores and 12 threads. Intel has more cores, but AMD enables simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which chip is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Results are split. Intel wins Cinebench R15 multicore by 15.6%, R20 multicore by 8.4%, and PassMark multithread by 9.1%. AMD wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 28.1%.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 4245P supports DDR5 only, with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ultra 9 285H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both have dual-channel memory buses and ECC support.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The EPYC 4245P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Ultra 9 285H includes Arc Graphics 140T.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The EPYC 4245P uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Ultra 9 285H uses a 3 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4245P is the pick for single-thread-critical applications. Its 76.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core is the standout metric in the entire comparison. Integer math workloads favor AMD by 10.7%, and physics by 4.9%. Data compression is essentially a tie, with AMD ahead by only 1.1%. The Cinebench R23 multicore win by 28.1% suggests that certain modern multi-threaded rendering workloads may also prefer the EPYC. Its 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 32 MB L3 cache suit server and workstation environments where I/O expansion and cache-sensitive workloads matter.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285H is the pick for floating-point-heavy and encryption-heavy tasks. The 46.9% lead in floating-point math is the largest PassMark gap in either direction. Prime number finding at 41.5% ahead and data encryption at 29.4% ahead make it the clear choice for number-theoretic computation and secure data handling. The 16-core count delivers wins in PassMark multithread by 9.1%, Cinebench R15 multicore by 15.6%, and R20 multicore by 8.4%. Its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and support for LPDDR5X make it better suited for mobile platforms where power efficiency and memory flexibility are priorities. Extended instructions are effectively even, with Intel up just 0.9%, so neither chip offers a meaningful edge there. Random string sorting goes to Intel by 2.5%, a minor but consistent win.