AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4345P and Intel Core Ultra 5 235A are both 65-watt processors, yet they target different market segments: the former is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket AM5, while the latter is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1851. Despite this, their average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the EPYC 4345P posting a 48470 average against the Core Ultra 5 235A's 48201. Both processors sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, and the head-to-head data shows the Intel part winning 13 of 17 benchmarks, though the AMD chip takes decisive victories in several specific workloads. The following analysis breaks down these results, examines the architectural and specification differences, and provides a data-driven verdict.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A demonstrates a consistent, if narrow, lead across all Cinebench iterations. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel part scores 32633 against the EPYC's 32020, a 1.9% advantage. The same 1.9% delta appears in every other Cinebench test, both single-core and multicore, including R15 (3289 vs 3227), R20 (13705 vs 13448), and R23 single-core (4607 vs 4520). This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-thread performance edge for Intel's Arrow Lake architecture rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Passmark suite reveals a more polarized picture. The AMD EPYC 4345P dominates in integer math, scoring 123774 versus Intel's 88626 — a massive 39.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction across all benchmarks. The EPYC also wins in data compression (421490 vs 393800, a 7% lead), extended instructions (31663 vs 31625, a marginal 0.1% edge), and physics (2583 vs 2437, a 6% win).

Intel's counterattacks are concentrated in floating-point and encryption workloads. The Core Ultra 5 235A crushes the EPYC in floating-point math with a score of 118778 versus 74255, a 37.5% advantage. Data encryption also favors Intel heavily: 30136 versus 23313, a 22.6% margin. The most extreme disparity appears in prime number finding, where Intel scores 392 against AMD's 167 — a 57.4% differential that highlights a stark difference in integer workload efficiency. Intel also wins in multithread (38392 vs 36123, 5.9%), random string sorting (49489 vs 46238, 6.6%), and single-thread (4557 vs 4408, 3.3%).

The overall benchmark counts reflect this split: Intel wins 13 tests, AMD wins 4. However, the magnitude of AMD's wins in integer math and data compression suggests the EPYC is not merely competitive but superior in specific server-relevant tasks. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story — the EPYC's 48470 is only 0.6% above Intel's 48201, placing the two chips within statistical noise of each other.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P has an average benchmark score of 48470, which is 0.6% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A's 48201. Both processors sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark's find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 392 against the EPYC's 167, a 57.4% advantage for Intel. The second-largest is in integer math, where the EPYC leads by 39.7% with a score of 123774 versus Intel's 88626.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the AMD EPYC 4345P scores 32020. Intel holds a 1.9% lead in this test, which is the same margin it holds across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 4345P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the EPYC wins four benchmarks: data compression (421490 vs 393800), extended instructions (31663 vs 31625), integer math (123774 vs 88626), and physics (2583 vs 2437). Its integer math win is particularly substantial at 39.7%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A does not. This is a notable distinction given the EPYC's server/workstation market segment.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P was released on May 12, 2025, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A was released later on July 28, 2025. Both processors are listed as actively in production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD EPYC 4345P uses Zen 5 architecture with the codename "Grado," fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A uses Arrow Lake architecture with the codename "Arrow Lake-S," fabricated on a more advanced 3 nm process, also by TSMC. The transistor counts differ dramatically: the Intel chip has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the AMD chip has 8,315 million transistors on a much smaller 70.6 mm² die. This size difference reflects the Intel part's larger core count and more complex design.

Core configuration is another major divergence. The EPYC 4345P has 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it has no multithreading capability. Despite having fewer physical cores, the EPYC's 16 threads allow it to remain competitive in multicore workloads, though it still trails Intel's 14 physical cores in most multithreaded tests. The EPYC's base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 3.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The EPYC provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's design offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may explain its advantage in latency-sensitive single-threaded workloads, while the EPYC's larger shared L3 benefits multi-threaded server tasks. The L3 cache difference is a 33% advantage for AMD in total shared capacity.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specification points beyond their architectures. The EPYC 4345P uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Core Ultra 5 235A uses Intel Socket 1851, making them incompatible with each other's motherboards. Both have a TDP of 65 watts and unlocked multipliers are false for both parts. Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses, but Intel has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD EPYC, not on the Intel part.

PCIe connectivity differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 235A offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are present on both, but they are very different: the AMD chip includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. The market segments also differ, with the EPYC classified as Server/Workstation and the Intel chip as Desktop. The EPYC's part number is 100-000001556, while Intel's is SRWPN. The launch MSRP for the EPYC is $329, while the Intel part's launch MSRP is $269.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the better choice for general desktop and consumer workloads, winning 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its advantages in floating-point math (37.5%), data encryption (22.6%), and prime number finding (57.4%) make it the stronger performer for scientific computing, cryptography, and integer-heavy algorithms. The Cinebench results, where Intel leads by 1.9% across every test, reinforce its superiority in rendering tasks. Its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and larger per-core caches contribute to this consistent edge.

The AMD EPYC 4345P, despite losing the majority of benchmarks, is the clear winner in specific server-relevant areas. Its 39.7% lead in integer math and 7% advantage in data compression make it the preferred option for database workloads and data processing tasks that rely heavily on integer operations. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server stability and data integrity that the Intel part lacks entirely. Its 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes offer more expansion capability than Intel's 20 lanes, and its server/workstation market segment classification reflects its intended use case.

For a buyer assembling a desktop workstation where rendering and floating-point performance matter most, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the data-backed recommendation. For a server or workstation deployment where data integrity, integer throughput, and ECC memory support are non-negotiable, the AMD EPYC 4345P is the justified selection. The two processors are closely matched overall — separated by just 0.6% in average benchmark score — but their performance profiles are distinct enough that the choice depends entirely on the specific workload priorities. The EPYC's 90th percentile ranking and Intel's identical percentile show that both are top-tier performers, just optimized for different tasks.