AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 and AMD EPYC 4364P present a clear study in contrasting design philosophies, yet they land within 0.2% of each other in average benchmark score. The Intel part, a 14-core desktop processor from the Arrow Lake generation, edges out the AMD EPYC 4364P, an 8-core server/workstation chip based on Zen 4, with an average score of 46062 against 45970. This near-identical overall performance, however, masks radically different strengths: the Intel chip wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD chip takes 8, with the victories distributed across entirely different workload categories.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4364P dominates rendering and heavily threaded compute workloads. In the Cinebench suite, the results are decisive and consistent: the EPYC 4364P scores 2982 in R15 multi-core versus 1488 for the Core Ultra 5 235, a 50.1% advantage. The pattern repeats in R20 (12427 vs 6202) and R23 (29589 vs 14769), with the same 50.1% delta. This is a processor built for sustained multi-threaded throughput, and the data reflects that specialization clearly.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235, by contrast, wins in single-threaded tests and several specific math and encryption workloads. The most dramatic victory is in PassMark’s find prime numbers test, where the Intel chip scores 371 against 177, a 109.6% advantage. It also leads heavily in floating point math (117951 vs 66946, a 76.2% delta) and physics (2570 vs 1785, a 44% delta). In single-thread performance, the Core Ultra 5 235 scores 4516 in PassMark’s single thread test, beating the EPYC’s 3619 by 24.8%. This split suggests the Intel chip is better suited for latency-sensitive tasks and workloads that rely on a single fast core, while the AMD chip excels when all cores are engaged.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different manufacturing and design blueprints. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, containing 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD EPYC 4364P, meanwhile, uses a 5 nm TSMC node with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. This difference in density and scale is reflected in their core configurations: the Intel chip has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the AMD chip has 8 cores but 16 threads thanks to simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. AMD’s design uses 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but a larger 32 MB shared L3. The Intel part’s higher per-core L2 cache is notable for its single-thread performance wins, while the AMD chip’s larger L3 pool supports its multi-threaded scaling. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the EPYC 4364P has a base clock of 4.50 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz, both higher than the Intel’s 3.40 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, which helps explain its Cinebench dominance despite fewer cores.

Memory and platform features also differ. The Intel chip supports dual-channel DDR5 with a theoretical bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD chip also supports dual-channel DDR5 but with 83.2 GB/s. However, the AMD EPYC 4364P includes ECC memory support, which the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 lacks—a critical feature for server and workstation reliability. PCIe connectivity favors AMD as well, with 28 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 20. The Intel chip includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU, while the AMD chip offers Radeon Graphics, but neither is a primary focus for these segments. The AMD part is classified as Server/Workstation, while Intel’s is Desktop, and both are currently active productions with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward selection based on workload. For any task that scales with cores and threads, the AMD EPYC 4364P is the clear choice. Its 50.1% lead across all three Cinebench multi-core tests is not incremental; it is a categorical advantage. This makes it the appropriate pick for rendering, video encoding, or any batch processing where all cores are saturated. The EPYC also offers ECC memory support and more PCIe lanes, which are meaningful for a server or workstation environment.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is the better option for single-threaded and latency-sensitive work. Its 24.8% lead in PassMark single-thread performance, combined with a 109.6% advantage in prime number finding and a 76.2% lead in floating point math, indicates strong per-core capability. Desktop users running interactive applications, scientific calculations with heavy FPU usage, or encryption workloads will find the Intel chip more responsive. The Core Ultra 5 235 also wins the PassMark multithread test (37816 vs 33883, an 11.6% delta), which suggests that in mixed or lightly threaded scenarios, it can sometimes outperform the EPYC despite the latter’s Cinebench dominance. The choice is not about which is faster overall—they are nearly identical—but about which workload profile matches your needs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 29589 versus 14769 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, a 50.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 win any multi-threaded tests?

A: Yes. In PassMark’s multithread test, the Intel chip scores 37816 against 33883 for the AMD EPYC, an 11.6% lead, despite losing all Cinebench multi-core tests.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235. It scores 4516 in PassMark single-thread, compared to 3619 for the AMD EPYC 4364P, a 24.8% advantage.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 versus 177 for the AMD EPYC, a 109.6% difference.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 4364P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 4364P has ECC memory support, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The AMD EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided results come from the Cinebench suite, where the AMD EPYC 4364P doubles the Intel chip’s scores. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2982 against 1488, a 50.1% delta. Single-core R15 shows the same pattern: 420 versus 210, a 50% delta. This exact 50.1% margin persists through R20 multi-core (12427 vs 6202) and R23 multi-core (29589 vs 14769). The consistency of this gap across Cinebench versions indicates a fundamental throughput advantage for the AMD part in this specific rendering workload.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235’s strongest wins are equally pronounced but in different domains. The 109.6% lead in find prime numbers (371 vs 177) is the single largest delta in either direction. Floating point math shows a 76.2% advantage (117951 vs 66946), and physics tests show a 44% lead (2570 vs 1785). The Intel chip also wins PassMark multithread by 11.6% (37816 vs 33883) and single-thread by 24.8% (4516 vs 3619), demonstrating that its per-core efficiency can overcome the EPYC’s core-count advantage in certain aggregate workloads.

The AMD EPYC 4364P, however, takes the integer math test with a score of 107775 against 87948, an 18.4% lead, and wins data compression narrowly at 408220 versus 390711, a 4.3% delta. Data encryption is a win for Intel at 29293 versus 24174, a 21.2% advantage, and extended instructions go to Intel by a slim 3.6% margin (32752 vs 31605). Random string sorting is nearly even, with Intel ahead at 48980 versus 48344, a 1.3% delta. The data shows a balanced split: AMD for pure multi-core rendering and integer work, Intel for single-thread, floating point, and encryption.