AMD EPYC 4564P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4564P and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K represent two very different philosophies in high-end computing: one is a server/workstation part built on a mature 5nm process, while the other is a desktop flagship on a high-end 3nm node. The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split, where Intel dominates in most tests, but AMD secures decisive victories in specific workloads that point to its architectural strengths. The average benchmark scores place the EPYC 4564P at 96,263 and the Core Ultra 9 285K at 93,672, a 2.8% overall advantage for AMD, yet the individual test results tell a more complex story than that single aggregate number suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is Intel’s near-total sweep of the Cinebench suite. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, the Core Ultra 9 285K wins by a remarkably consistent margin of 3.5% in multicore and between 3.4% and 3.5% in single-core tests. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multicore, Intel scores 57,584 against AMD’s 55,592, while in the single-core variant, Intel posts 8,129 versus 7,848. This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-core efficiency advantage for Intel in rendering-style workloads, not just a raw core-count effect.

However, the Passmark suite reveals where AMD fights back with overwhelming force. The EPYC 4564P’s biggest win is in integer math, where it scores 230,740 against Intel’s 173,281 – a massive 33.2% lead. This is not a marginal victory; it is a categorical statement about the Zen 4 architecture’s integer execution capabilities. AMD also takes data compression with 869,555 versus 794,635 (a 9.4% lead) and random string sorting with 104,284 versus 95,726 (an 8.9% advantage). Extended instructions also favor AMD, though more narrowly, at 63,663 versus 62,300 (2.2%).

Intel’s counterattacks in Passmark are equally decisive in their own domains. Floating-point math shows Intel crushing AMD with 225,800 against 142,391 – a 36.9% margin that dwarfs AMD’s integer win. The find prime numbers test is even more lopsided: Intel scores 545 versus AMD’s 373, a 31.6% gap. Data encryption goes to Intel at 58,210 versus 51,282 (11.9%), and physics tests show Intel ahead at 4,062 versus 3,554 (12.5%). Single-thread performance also favors Intel clearly, with 5,097 versus 4,371 (14.2%).

The overall scoreboard shows Intel winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the multithread Passmark result is close: Intel edges AMD 67,737 to 65,403, a 3.4% margin. This creates an interesting paradox – Intel wins most tests, but AMD’s victories are so large in specific areas that the average benchmark score still favors AMD. The data suggests that the EPYC 4564P is not a general-purpose champion but a specialized tool that excels in integer-heavy, compression-oriented tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their design blueprints. The EPYC 4564P uses AMD’s Zen 4 architecture on a 5nm TSMC process, with 13,140 million transistors spread across a dual-die design (2x 71 mm²). In contrast, the Core Ultra 9 285K employs Intel’s Arrow Lake architecture on a 3nm TSMC node, packing 17,800 million transistors into a larger 243 mm² die. The process node difference is significant – 3nm versus 5nm – and likely explains Intel’s per-clock efficiency gains.

Core configuration tells a different story: AMD offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while Intel provides 24 cores but only 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on the Intel part. This makes AMD’s thread count advantage clear, yet Intel still wins most multithreaded tests, indicating its core efficiency more than compensates for the lack of SMT. Base clocks differ substantially, with AMD at 4.50 GHz versus Intel’s 3.70 GHz, yet both share the same 5.70 GHz boost clock. AMD’s higher base clock suggests a more aggressive operating point, while Intel’s architecture achieves more work per cycle.

Cache hierarchies are radically different. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a substantial 64 MB shared L3. Intel counters with 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. AMD’s larger L3 cache likely contributes to its data compression and string sorting wins, as these workloads benefit from larger working sets residing on-chip. Intel’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may explain its single-thread and floating-point advantages.

Memory bandwidth also favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 83.2 GB/s, despite both using dual-channel DDR5. This 19.2 GB/s gap could influence floating-point math and physics tests where data throughput is critical. PCIe lanes differ too: AMD offers 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel’s 20, giving AMD more expansion headroom for server-style workloads. Intel’s integrated graphics, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, is more powerful than AMD’s Radeon Graphics, though both are present. Finally, Intel’s multiplier is unlocked while AMD’s is not, a notable difference for overclocking enthusiasts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4564P leads with an average score of 96,263, which is 2.8% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s 93,672. However, this average masks the fact that Intel wins 13 of the 17 individual head-to-head tests.

Q: Why does AMD win the integer math test by such a large margin?

A: The EPYC 4564P scores 230,740 in Passmark integer math, a 33.2% lead over Intel’s 173,281. This likely stems from Zen 4’s strong integer execution pipeline and the 64 MB shared L3 cache, which helps keep more working data on-chip for integer-heavy operations.

Q: Is the Intel part better for single-threaded performance?

A: Yes, the data is unambiguous. Intel wins the Passmark single-thread test with 5,097 versus 4,371, a 14.2% margin, and also takes all Cinebench single-core tests by 3.4-3.5%. The 3nm process and larger per-core L1/L2 caches likely contribute to this advantage.

Q: Does the AMD processor’s higher base clock matter?

A: AMD’s base clock of 4.50 GHz is notably higher than Intel’s 3.70 GHz, yet both boost to 5.70 GHz. In practice, Intel still wins most tests, suggesting that IPC (instructions per clock) differences outweigh the base clock disparity in sustained workloads.

Q: What explains Intel’s massive floating-point win?

A: Intel scores 225,800 in Passmark floating-point math versus AMD’s 142,391, a 36.9% advantage. This is Intel’s largest win in any test and points to a significantly stronger FPU design in Arrow Lake, combined with the higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor is more suited for server workloads?

A: The EPYC 4564P is marketed for the Server/Workstation segment, while the Core Ultra 9 285K is a Desktop part. AMD’s 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, larger 64 MB L3 cache, and ECC memory support align with server needs, despite Intel also supporting ECC and having more cores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4564P | Intel Core Ultra 9 285K |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Raphael | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 13,140 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 71 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 64 KB | 192 KB |

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 64 MB | 36 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | 28 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $699 | $589 |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4564P is the clear winner in workloads that stress integer arithmetic, data compression, and string manipulation. Its 33.2% lead in integer math and 9.4% advantage in data compression make it the obvious choice for database operations, financial modeling, and any application that processes large volumes of integer-based transactions. The 8.9% win in random string sorting further cements its suitability for text processing, log analysis, and sorting-heavy algorithms. The larger 64 MB L3 cache likely powers these wins by reducing memory latency for repetitive data access patterns.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K dominates in floating-point calculations, physics simulations, and single-threaded responsiveness. Its 36.9% margin in floating-point math is the single largest delta in any test, making it ideal for scientific computing, 3D rendering, and AI inference that rely heavily on FP32/FP64 operations. The 14.2% single-thread advantage and 12.5% physics win indicate superior real-world responsiveness for interactive applications. Intel also wins all Cinebench tests, suggesting better performance in video encoding and 3D rendering tools that use these benchmarks as the basis for their scoring.

For encryption workloads, Intel’s 11.9% lead in data encryption suggests more optimized cryptographic instruction sets, making it a better fit for secure communications and VPN servers. The find prime numbers result (31.6% for Intel) points to advantages in number-theoretic algorithms, which could matter in cryptography and hashing. Intel’s lower TDP of 125 W versus AMD’s 170 W also means it achieves these wins with 45 W less thermal headroom, a significant efficiency advantage for dense deployments.

The Verdict

The data tells a story of specialization over generalization. The AMD EPYC 4564P should be chosen by users who prioritize integer-heavy, data-centric workloads such as database servers, data compression pipelines, and large-scale string processing. Its 64 MB L3 cache and 32 threads make it a formidable server part, and the 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes offer more expansion for storage arrays or network cards. The 33.2% integer math win is not a minor detail – it is a decisive advantage that will manifest in real-world transaction processing and financial analytics.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the better pick for anyone whose work revolves around floating-point calculations, physics, or general-purpose desktop performance. Its 36.9% floating-point lead is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and its 14.2% single-thread advantage makes it snappier for everyday use. The 24 cores without hyperthreading, combined with a 3nm process, deliver excellent efficiency at 125 W TDP. For video editors, 3D animators, or researchers running physics simulations, Intel’s consistent wins across Cinebench and floating-point tests make it the clear choice.

The average benchmark scores favor AMD by 2.8%, but that figure should not be read as a general recommendation. A user who runs primarily integer workloads will see dramatically better performance on the EPYC 4564P, while a user who runs floating-point or physics-heavy applications will find the Core Ultra 9 285K up to 36.9% faster. The choice hinges entirely on the workload profile. AMD wins where data is dense and integer-bound; Intel wins where math is heavy and single-threaded speed matters. Both processors sit in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a poor choice – they are simply optimized for different realities.