AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4345P and Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX occupy nearly identical positions in the overall benchmark distribution, with both parts landing at the 90th percentile and average scores of 48470 and 48287, respectively. The 0.4% delta in favor of the AMD part places these two processors in a statistical dead heat, yet the underlying workload profiles reveal starkly different strengths. The data shows a competition between a compact 8-core server chip built on Zen 5 and a 14-core mobile processor using Arrow Lake-HX, with each dominating specific computational domains.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite paints a consistent picture of Intel’s edge in rendering workloads, albeit by narrow margins. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Core Ultra 5 245HX wins, with deltas ranging from -1% to -1.1%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 32358 against AMD’s 32020, a 1% advantage. Single-core results mirror this pattern: R23 single-core shows 4568 versus 4520, again a 1.1% gap. The R15 and R20 tests follow the same trend, with Intel leading by exactly 1% in multi-core and 1% to 1.1% in single-core. These margins are small enough to be considered within run-to-run variance, yet their consistency across every Cinebench iteration suggests a genuine, if modest, architectural advantage for Intel in this workload.

The Passmark suite reveals a far more polarized picture. AMD’s biggest win comes in integer math, where the EPYC 4345P scores 123774 against Intel’s 92150, a commanding 34.3% advantage. This is the single largest delta in either direction and highlights Zen 5’s strength in scalar integer processing. AMD also leads in data compression, scoring 421490 versus 393071, a 7.2% margin, and in extended instructions, with 31663 versus 31212, a 1.4% edge. The physics test goes to AMD as well, 2583 versus 2526, a 2.3% difference.

Intel’s Passmark victories are equally decisive but concentrated in different areas. The largest single gap is in find prime numbers, where Intel scores 359 against AMD’s 167, a staggering 53.5% advantage. Floating-point math also heavily favors Intel, with 120735 versus 74255, a 38.5% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel by 22.3%, scoring 30022 versus 23313. The multithread test shows Intel ahead at 38069 versus 36123, a 5.1% margin, and random string sorting goes Intel’s way by 2.9%, 47616 versus 46238. Single-thread performance favors Intel by 1.6%, with scores of 4481 versus 4408.

The overall win count is decisive: Intel takes 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while AMD claims 4. However, the magnitude of AMD’s integer math victory is nearly as large as Intel’s combined advantages in prime numbers and floating-point math. The data suggests that workload selection matters far more than the average benchmark score would indicate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their design philosophy. The AMD EPYC 4345P uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, containing 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. It is a dual-channel, 8-core, 16-thread part with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX employs Arrow Lake-HX on a 3 nm TSMC process, packing 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. It offers 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating a design without hyperthreading, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of shared L3. Intel offers 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 24 MB of shared L3. This means AMD’s per-core L2 is one-third the size of Intel’s, yet AMD’s total L3 is 33% larger. The transistor count difference is notable: Intel packs over twice as many transistors into a die more than three times larger, reflecting the more complex 14-core design and integrated graphics.

Memory support shows both parts using DDR5 with dual-channel buses, but Intel’s memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD part, which aligns with its server/workstation market segment. PCIe connectivity also differs, with AMD offering Gen 5 across 24 lanes versus Intel’s 20 lanes. The integrated graphics are distinct: AMD includes Radeon Graphics, while Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU. The AMD part is socketed on AM5, while Intel uses BGA 2114, making the EPYC a socketed server chip and the Core Ultra a soldered mobile processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4345P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel offers more physical cores, but AMD provides more threads due to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: Intel wins every single-core benchmark in the data. The largest margin is 1.6% in Passmark single-thread (4481 vs 4408), while Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 1.1% gap (4568 vs 4520). The differences are consistent but small.

Q: Where does AMD have its biggest advantage?

A: AMD’s largest lead is in Passmark integer math, where it scores 123774 versus Intel’s 92150, a 34.3% advantage. It also wins data compression by 7.2% and physics by 2.3%.

Q: Where does Intel dominate the most?

A: Intel’s biggest win is in Passmark find prime numbers, scoring 359 versus AMD’s 167, a 53.5% lead. It also wins floating-point math by 38.5% and data encryption by 22.3%.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. AMD is ahead by 0.70 GHz base and 0.40 GHz boost.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4345P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX does not. This reflects AMD’s server segment positioning.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4345P | Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 14 |

| Threads | 16 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Arrow Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 8,315 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | 24 | 20 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2025-05-12 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $329 | Not available |

The Verdict

The data supports two distinct use cases. The AMD EPYC 4345P is the clear choice for integer-heavy server workloads. Its 34.3% lead in integer math and 7.2% advantage in data compression, combined with ECC memory support and a 24-lane Gen 5 PCIe interface, make it suitable for database and transactional processing. The 16 threads from 8 cores with simultaneous multithreading provide strong parallel integer throughput. Its launch MSRP is $329.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is the pick for floating-point and encryption tasks. Its 38.5% lead in floating-point math, 53.5% advantage in prime number finding, and 22.3% edge in data encryption are substantial. The higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s and 14 physical cores support these workloads. The unlocked multiplier also offers overclocking flexibility, though the BGA socket limits practical system integration.

For general multi-threaded rendering, Intel’s 1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (32358 vs 32020) is marginal, but it wins 13 of 17 total benchmarks. The 90th percentile ranking for both parts indicates top-tier performance overall. The average benchmark scores differ by only 183 points, yet the workload-specific deltas range from -53.5% to +34.3%. Users should choose based on whether their primary applications favor AMD’s integer strength or Intel’s floating-point dominance. The AMD part is a socketed server processor with ECC, while Intel is a mobile chip with soldered BGA packaging. These are complementary designs, not direct substitutes, and the benchmark data reflects their divergent optimization targets.