AMD EPYC 4465P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus are remarkably close in overall benchmark performance, with the AMD part winning 10 of 17 head-to-head tests but the Intel chip taking the average-score crown in specific workloads. The EPYC 4465P edges ahead in overall average benchmark score (66925 vs 66159) and holds a 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, matching the Intel part’s percentile. However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus counters with decisive victories in floating-point math and encryption, making the choice between these two depend entirely on the workload profile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD EPYC 4465P sweeps the Cinebench suite, though by margins that are almost negligible. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 4326 against 4305 for Intel, a 0.5% advantage. The same 0.5% delta repeats across R20 multicore (18025 vs 17941) and R23 multicore (42918 vs 42718). Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 single-core 610 vs 607, R20 single-core 2544 vs 2532, and R23 single-core 6059 vs 6030, all favoring AMD by 0.5%. These margins are within run-to-run noise, but the consistency across all six Cinebench tests signals a slight architectural edge for the EPYC in rendering-style workloads.

The largest AMD victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the EPYC 4465P scores 174551 against 123030 for Intel — a massive 41.9% lead. This is the single biggest performance gap in either direction, and it reflects the AMD chip’s 24 threads versus the Intel’s 18 threads, even though the Intel part has more physical cores. Data compression also favors AMD by 4.3% (577210 vs 553155), and physics tests show a 14.6% AMD advantage (3647 vs 3183). Random string sorting is essentially tied, with AMD ahead by just 0.6% (67597 vs 67209).

Intel’s counterattack is concentrated in floating-point and security workloads. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins floating-point math by 33.8% (159824 vs 105833), a decisive reversal of the integer-math result. Data encryption goes Intel’s way by 22.1% (41292 vs 32184), while prime-number finding shows a 25.2% Intel advantage (452 vs 338). Extended instructions are dead even at 42880 vs 42867, and multithread performance is essentially tied at 50146 vs 49871, giving Intel a 0.5% win. Single-thread PassMark also favors Intel by 2.6% (4698 vs 4575).

The overall pattern is clear: AMD wins integer-heavy and physics workloads by substantial margins, while Intel dominates floating-point and encryption. For mixed workloads, the 0.1% delta in average benchmark score between the EPYC 4465P and its closest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66925 vs 66855), shows how little separates these tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher multithreaded performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P scores 42918 versus 42718 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a 0.5% advantage that favors AMD in all three Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, and R23).

Q: Why does the Intel chip win floating-point math by such a large margin?

A: The PassMark floating-point math test shows Intel at 159824 versus AMD at 105833, a 33.8% gap. This likely stems from the Intel part’s 18 physical cores and higher base clock of 4.20 GHz, though the EPYC’s 24 threads help it in integer workloads.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the two CPUs are exactly tied?

A: Yes, the PassMark extended instructions test shows a 0% delta, with Intel scoring 42880 and AMD scoring 42867. This is the only head-to-head test with a zero difference.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between these two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the AMD EPYC 4465P has 16,630 million transistors split across two 70.6 mm² dies. Both are fabricated by TSMC, with Intel on a 3 nm node and AMD on a 4 nm node.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 4465P and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus list ECC memory support as enabled. Both also support DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, though Intel has higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes available from the CPU?

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P provides 24 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. Both use PCIe Gen 5, but AMD offers four additional CPU-attached lanes.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 4465P is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Grado, using a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It features a dual-die design with two 70.6 mm² chiplets, totaling 16,630 million transistors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on a 3 nm TSMC process, with a single 243 mm² die containing 17,800 million transistors. Despite the smaller process node, Intel’s die is significantly larger than the combined AMD chiplets (243 mm² vs 141.2 mm²).

Cache organization differs substantially. The AMD part offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 30 MB of shared L3. This means AMD provides more than double the L3 capacity (64 MB vs 30 MB), which helps in cache-sensitive workloads like the integer math tests where AMD leads by 41.9%. Intel’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may benefit single-thread latency, though the PassMark single-thread test shows only a 2.6% Intel advantage.

Threading strategy is a key differentiator. The AMD EPYC 4465P offers 12 cores with 24 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 18 cores but only 18 threads — no SMT. This explains why AMD wins integer math (174551 vs 123030) despite having fewer physical cores. The Intel part compensates with higher base and boost clocks (4.20/5.30 GHz vs 3.40/5.40 GHz), though AMD’s boost clock is slightly higher at 5.40 GHz.

Other architectural differences include the AMD part’s integrated Radeon Graphics versus no integrated graphics on the Intel chip. Both support Gen 5 PCIe, but AMD provides 24 lanes versus 20 for Intel. The AMD EPYC is designated for the server/workstation market segment, while the Intel part targets desktop. The AMD multiplier is locked, whereas the Intel multiplier is unlocked for overclocking.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4465P | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 12 | 18 |

| Threads | 24 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 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 | 64 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | 24 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | N/A |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $399 | $184 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The Verdict

The benchmark data does not declare a single winner; it declares two winners for different jobs. The AMD EPYC 4465P wins 10 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench test and the massive 41.9% integer math victory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 7 tests, but its victories are larger in magnitude — 33.8% in floating-point math and 22.1% in encryption. In overall average benchmark score, AMD leads 66925 vs 66159, a 1.2% difference. Both parts sit at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs.

The AMD EPYC 4465P is the better choice for integer-heavy server and workstation workloads, physics simulation, and data compression, where its 24 threads and 64 MB L3 cache provide clear advantages. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the better choice for floating-point computation, encryption, and single-thread PassMark performance, with its 18 physical cores and higher base clock. The Intel part also draws more power at 125 W TDP versus 65 W for AMD, and it carries a lower launch MSRP of $184 versus $399 for AMD.

For users who prioritize rendering consistency across Cinebench generations, the AMD part’s 0.5% sweep is notable even if the margins are small. For users who need maximum floating-point throughput or encryption speed, the Intel part’s double-digit wins are decisive.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 4465P wins in: Cinebench R15/R20/R23 multicore and single-core (all by 0.5%), integer math (41.9% lead), physics (14.6% lead), data compression (4.3% lead), and random string sorting (0.6% lead). This makes it the pick for rendering workloads, integer-heavy database operations, physics simulations, and compression tasks. The 24 threads and 64 MB L3 cache are the likely drivers, along with the lower 65 W TDP for power-constrained environments.

Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in: floating-point math (33.8% lead), encryption (22.1% lead), prime-number finding (25.2% lead), single-thread PassMark (2.6% lead), multithread PassMark (0.5% lead), and extended instructions (0% tie). This makes it the pick for scientific floating-point computation, encryption/decryption workloads, prime-number searches, and lightly threaded applications. The 18 physical cores and 3 nm process node with higher base clock of 4.20 GHz give it the edge in these areas.

The remaining benchmark — extended instructions — is a dead heat at 42880 vs 42867, meaning neither CPU has a meaningful advantage in that specific test. For mixed workloads, the 0.1% delta between the EPYC 4465P and its closest rival (Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855) suggests that system-level factors like memory bandwidth (Intel’s 115.2 GB/s vs AMD’s 89.6 GB/s) or PCIe lane count (AMD’s 24 vs Intel’s 20) may be more important than raw CPU compute in real-world deployments.