AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD EPYC 4345P are both 65 W desktop processors released in 2025, yet they target different corners of the market despite similar average benchmark scores. The Intel part, with a launch MSRP of $270, lands in the Core Ultra Series 2 as a 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake-S chip, while the AMD EPYC 4345P, with a launch MSRP of $329, is a Zen 5-based server/workstation part with 8 cores and 16 threads. Both sit at the 90th percentile vs. all CPUs, and their aggregate scores are close — the Intel chip averages 48,995 and the AMD chip 48,470 — but the underlying benchmark pattern reveals two very different performance personalities. The data shows a clear split: Intel wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet AMD counters with decisive victories in integer math, data compression, and single-threaded PassMark scores. This is a comparison of architectural philosophy, not just raw speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 reaches 5.10 GHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.50 GHz.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 scores 32,924 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 2.8% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4345P’s 32,020. This margin holds consistently across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, all showing a 2.8% Intel advantage.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 4345P win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 4345P wins PassMark integer math by 26.3%, scoring 123,774 versus Intel’s 91,187. It also leads in data compression with 421,490 versus 400,942, a 4.9% edge.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P provides 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 provides 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and the AMD EPYC 4345P have locked multipliers.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is built on a 3 nm process by TSMC, whereas the AMD EPYC 4345P uses a 4 nm process, also by TSMC. Intel’s chip has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while AMD’s has 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward recommendation: choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 for general desktop productivity and most multi-threaded workloads, and pick the AMD EPYC 4345P only if your specific tasks emphasize integer math, data compression, or absolute single-thread PassMark performance. Intel wins 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all six Cinebench runs and the PassMark multithread score (38,706 vs. 36,123, a 7.2% lead). The Intel chip is also decisively ahead in floating-point math (62.3%), prime number finding (118.6%), and data encryption (29.7%). Meanwhile, AMD’s EPYC 4345P, despite its server branding, only wins five tests — but those wins are meaningful: integer math by 26.3%, data compression by 4.9%, and a narrow 0.3% edge in PassMark single-thread. The EPYC’s higher boost clock (5.50 GHz) and 16 threads on 8 cores do not translate into Cinebench wins, suggesting its architecture favors specific instruction patterns over general rendering workloads. For a workstation buyer needing strong encryption, floating-point, or prime-number performance, the Intel part is the clear data-driven choice; for integer-heavy server-side tasks, the AMD part has a real niche.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in the entire comparison is PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 365 versus AMD’s 167 — a staggering 118.6% advantage. This suggests the Intel architecture handles this specific algorithmic workload far more efficiently. Floating-point math is another blowout: Intel’s 120,548 beats AMD’s 74,255 by 62.3%. Data encryption follows the same pattern, with Intel ahead 30,236 to 23,313, a 29.7% margin. These three wins alone paint a picture of Intel dominating math-heavy and security-related tasks.

AMD’s counterattack comes in integer math, where it scores 123,774 against Intel’s 91,187, a 26.3% victory. This is the single largest AMD win and highlights a fundamental difference in execution. Data compression also goes to AMD, with 421,490 versus 400,942, a 4.9% edge. The remaining AMD wins are narrow: PassMark physics (2,583 vs. 2,569, a 0.5% margin) and PassMark single-thread (4,408 vs. 4,394, a 0.3% margin). These small margins suggest AMD’s lead in single-thread is real but negligible.

In the Cinebench suite, Intel wins every test by exactly 2.8%, from R15 multi-core (3,318 vs. 3,227) to R23 single-core (4,648 vs. 4,520). This consistency implies a per-core efficiency advantage that scales uniformly across all rendering workloads. The PassMark multithread test shows a larger Intel lead at 7.2% (38,706 vs. 36,123), and random string sorting also favors Intel by 6.3% (49,140 vs. 46,238). Extended instructions go to Intel by 5.2% (33,304 vs. 31,663).

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts diverge sharply: Intel packs 14 cores and 14 threads, while AMD offers 8 cores and 16 threads. This means Intel has no simultaneous multithreading, while AMD leverages it to double thread count on half the cores. Clock speeds differ, with AMD’s base clock at 3.80 GHz and boost at 5.50 GHz, versus Intel’s 3.50 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. Cache configurations are also distinct: Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3; AMD provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 89.6 GB/s, though both support dual-channel DDR5 and ECC memory. Socket and platform differ completely — Intel uses Socket 1851, AMD uses Socket AM5. The Intel part includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, while AMD includes Radeon Graphics. PCIe lane counts differ, with AMD offering 24 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 20. Finally, the Intel chip is smaller in process node (3 nm vs. 4 nm) but larger in die size (243 mm² vs. 70.6 mm²) and transistor count (17,800 million vs. 8,315 million).

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 is built on Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, using a 3 nm TSMC process. Its die size of 243 mm² houses 17,800 million transistors, reflecting a complex design with 14 cores and integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics. AMD’s EPYC 4345P uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a much smaller 70.6 mm² die and 8,315 million transistors. The core count difference — 14 Intel cores versus 8 AMD cores — is partially offset by AMD’s 16 threads, but the cache hierarchy tells a different story. Intel allocates 3 MB L2 per core, which is 3x AMD’s 1 MB per core, while AMD’s shared L3 is larger at 32 MB versus Intel’s 24 MB. The L1 cache also differs: Intel has 192 KB per core, AMD has 80 KB per core. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, but Intel’s memory bandwidth is higher. The Intel part’s integrated graphics are explicitly Arc Xe-LPG with 64 execution units, whereas AMD’s integrated Radeon Graphics are unspecified in detail. The architecture codenames differ as well: Intel’s is Arrow Lake-S, AMD’s is Grado. Neither chip has 3D V-Cache, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

Intel wins overwhelmingly in rendering and compute-heavy workloads. All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core, go to Intel by 2.8% — a consistent edge that makes it the safer pick for video rendering, 3D modeling, and any benchmark suite based on Cinebench. Intel also dominates floating-point math (62.3% ahead), prime number finding (118.6% ahead), and data encryption (29.7% ahead), making it the choice for scientific computing, cryptography, and financial simulations. The PassMark multithread score (7.2% ahead) and random string sorting (6.3% ahead) reinforce Intel’s lead in general multi-threaded throughput.

AMD’s wins are narrower but targeted. Integer math is AMD’s biggest victory at 26.3%, which matters for database operations, compression algorithms, and certain types of data processing. Data compression also favors AMD by 4.9%, so archiving and file-compression tasks would benefit. The AMD part edges out Intel in PassMark single-thread (0.3%) and physics (0.5%), though these margins are so small they may fall within run-to-run variance. For a server or workstation running integer-heavy, compression-focused workloads, the EPYC 4345P’s 16 threads on 8 cores plus its higher 5.50 GHz boost clock offer a specific advantage. However, given Intel’s 12-5 win count in head-to-head tests and the sheer size of its wins in encryption, floating-point, and prime numbers, the data strongly favors Intel for most users. AMD’s niche is real but narrow, defined by integer math and compression rather than general-purpose performance.