AMD EPYC 4484PX vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4484PX and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus present a fascinating study in contrasting design philosophies, with the data revealing a server-class processor that edges out a desktop part in overall average benchmark score (67,822 vs. 66,159) despite the Intel chip's superior single-threaded performance. The AMD EPYC 4484PX wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus takes 5, yet the nature of those victories tells a more nuanced story about workload suitability than the raw win count suggests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4484PX establishes its dominance in multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads, which aligns perfectly with its server/workstation market segment. The data shows a commanding 55.1% lead in PassMark physics (4,938 vs. 3,183), a 32.5% advantage in integer math (162,993 vs. 123,030), and a 9.1% edge in data compression (603,371 vs. 553,155). These are the kinds of tasks that benefit from the EPYC's 12 cores with 24 threads and its massive 128 MB shared L3 cache with an additional 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice. The EPYC also wins every single Cinebench test, albeit by narrow margins of 0.6-0.7%, suggesting that its architecture delivers consistent, if modest, superiority in rendering workloads across R15, R20, and R23.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, claims its victories in areas that leverage its higher clock speeds and different core topology. Its most dramatic win is in floating-point math, where it scores 159,824 against the EPYC's 96,446 — a massive 39.7% margin that speaks to its 18 cores (though with 18 threads, meaning no hyperthreading) and 3 nm process node efficiency. The Intel chip also wins single-thread performance decisively, with a 12.3% advantage in PassMark single-thread (4,698 vs. 4,119), and it leads in data encryption by 11.6% (41,292 vs. 36,499) and prime number finding by 6% (452 vs. 425). These wins point toward workloads that are latency-sensitive or rely heavily on per-core throughput rather than sheer thread count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX has an average benchmark score of 67,822, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 66,159 and sits in the 93rd percentile — a 1.7-point gap in average score that translates to a 1 percentile difference.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX scores 42,964 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, edging out the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's 42,718 by a 0.6% margin, a pattern repeated across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, and R23) where the EPYC wins by 0.6-0.7%.

Q: What is the most significant single benchmark difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leads by 39.7% (159,824 vs. 96,446), followed by the EPYC's 55.1% advantage in PassMark physics (4,938 vs. 3,183).

Q: Does the Intel chip's higher core count translate to more multi-threaded wins?

A: No — despite having 18 cores versus the EPYC's 12, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus loses the PassMark multi-thread benchmark (50,146 vs. 50,547, a 0.8% EPYC win) and all Cinebench multi-core tests, because its 18 threads match its core count while the EPYC's 12 cores support 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins PassMark single-thread by 12.3% (4,698 vs. 4,119), though the EPYC 4484PX narrowly wins all Cinebench single-core tests by 0.6-0.7%, suggesting the PassMark test is more sensitive to the Intel chip's specific strengths.

Q: What do the nearest rival comparisons reveal about each processor's competitive position?

A: The EPYC 4484PX's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX at -0.1% delta, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is most closely matched by the Intel Core 9 273PQE at +0.1%, with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D just 0.4% behind.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD EPYC 4484PX winning every single test by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4,330 against 4,305 for a 0.6% win; R15 single-core shows 611 vs. 607 for 0.7%; R20 multi-core is 18,044 vs. 17,941 (0.6%); R20 single-core is 2,547 vs. 2,532 (0.6%); R23 multi-core is 42,964 vs. 42,718 (0.6%); and R23 single-core is 6,065 vs. 6,030 (0.6%). This uniformity suggests the EPYC's architecture provides a small but consistent advantage across rendering generations, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded.

The PassMark suite tells a more dramatic story. The EPYC's biggest win comes in physics, where its 4,938 score crushes the Intel's 3,183 — a 55.1% gap that dwarfs everything else in the comparison. Integer math shows a 32.5% EPYC advantage (162,993 vs. 123,030), data compression favors the EPYC by 9.1% (603,371 vs. 553,155), and random string sorting goes to the EPYC by 6.6% (71,642 vs. 67,209). The EPYC also wins extended instructions by 1% (43,315 vs. 42,880) and multi-thread by 0.8% (50,547 vs. 50,146).

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus counters with its own impressive numbers. Floating-point math is its crown jewel: 159,824 vs. 96,446 for a 39.7% margin. Single-thread performance shows a 12.3% Intel lead (4,698 vs. 4,119), data encryption favors Intel by 11.6% (41,292 vs. 36,499), and find prime numbers goes to Intel by 6% (452 vs. 425). These results paint a picture of a processor that excels at mathematical throughput and single-core responsiveness but falls behind in physics simulation, integer-heavy tasks, and memory-bound operations.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly on core configuration. The AMD EPYC 4484PX offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides 18 cores and 18 threads — meaning the Intel chip lacks simultaneous multithreading. Clock speeds favor the EPYC with a 4.40 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost, versus the Intel's 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. Thermal design power is similar at 120 W for the EPYC and 125 W for the Intel chip.

Memory bandwidth shows the Intel part with a substantial advantage: 115.2 GB/s versus the EPYC's 83.2 GB/s, despite both supporting dual-channel DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe lane counts differ, with the EPYC providing 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) compared to the Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A). The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC's is locked, and the Intel part's launch MSRP is $184 versus the EPYC's $599. The Intel processor releases on 2026-03-10, later than the EPYC's 2024-05-20 release date.

Architecture Differences

The processors represent fundamentally different architectural approaches. The AMD EPYC 4484PX uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 17,840 million transistors spread across two 71 mm² dies. Its cache hierarchy is distinctive: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB shared L3 augmented by a 1x 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice — a configuration clearly designed for data-heavy server workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a more advanced 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. Its cache layout differs substantially: 192 KB L1 per core and 3 MB L2 per core, but only 30 MB of shared L3 — less than a quarter of the EPYC's L3 allocation. The Intel chip has no 3D V-Cache equivalent. The EPYC is classified as server/workstation while the Intel part is desktop-oriented, and they use different sockets (AMD Socket AM5 vs. Intel Socket 1851), making them incompatible with each other's platforms.

The Verdict

The data suggests the AMD EPYC 4484PX is the choice for workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput, particularly in physics simulation, integer math, and data compression — areas where its 24 threads and 192 MB of combined cache (128 MB L3 plus 64 MB V-Cache) provide decisive advantages. Its 55.1% physics victory and 32.5% integer math lead are not marginal; they represent fundamental architectural strengths that would matter in scientific computing, financial modeling, and server-side data processing. The EPYC's consistent, if narrow, Cinebench wins across every version reinforce its suitability for rendering tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the better option for single-thread-sensitive applications and floating-point-heavy calculations. Its 39.7% floating-point math advantage is extraordinary, and its 12.3% single-thread lead makes it attractive for lightly-threaded desktop workloads, gaming, and applications that respond to per-core speed. The 11.6% encryption advantage also indicates strengths in security-related tasks. However, its lack of hyperthreading (18 threads vs. 24) and smaller 30 MB L3 cache put it at a disadvantage in the multi-threaded scenarios where the EPYC excels. The EPYC's 94th percentile ranking versus the Intel's 93rd, combined with its higher average score, suggests that for users who need a jack-of-all-trades server/workstation processor, the AMD part is the data-backed winner — while the Intel chip makes the stronger case for pure desktop compute performance.