AMD EPYC 4584PX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus and AMD EPYC 4584PX are both top-tier performers, landing in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The overall average benchmark scores are close, with Intel at 84003 and AMD at 83090, a 1.1% difference. However, this aggregate similarity masks a stark divergence in workload-specific strengths. The Intel chip dominates in single-threaded and floating-point tasks, while the AMD EPYC asserts its authority in integer math and memory-sensitive operations. The data shows a clear split: Intel for latency-sensitive desktop-style workloads, AMD for server-centric throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus comes in passmark_floating_point_math, where it scores 214760 against the EPYC's 121460. That is a massive 76.8% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a categorical demolition. Any workload heavily reliant on FPU throughput will find the Intel part vastly superior.

Single-thread performance is another Intel stronghold. In passmark_single_thread, the Ultra 9 scores 4823, beating the EPYC's 3795 by 27.1%. This pattern repeats across the Cinebench suite. In cinebench_r23_singlecore, Intel wins with 7303 vs 7274 (0.4% delta), and the same 0.4% edge appears in cinebench_r15_singlecore (736 vs 733) and cinebench_r20_singlecore (3067 vs 3055). While the Cinebench deltas are small, the PassMark single-thread gap is enormous, indicating Intel's core architecture has a significant IPC and clock advantage in lightly-threaded scenarios.

The story flips dramatically in integer-heavy work. The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins passmark_integer_math with 201919, beating Intel's 166194 by 17.7%. This is the EPYC's largest win. The AMD chip also takes passmark_physics, scoring 4574 to Intel's 3315, a 27.5% margin. This suggests the EPYC's Zen 4 cores are better optimized for certain types of compute-intensive integer operations, despite having fewer cores (16 vs 24).

In multi-core rendering, the Intel chip holds a consistent, if narrow, lead. The Ultra 9 290K Plus wins cinebench_r23_multicore with 51731 vs 51524, cinebench_r20_multicore with 21727 vs 21640, and cinebench_r15_multicore with 5214 vs 5193. All three show a 0.4% delta. The passmark_multithread test shows a more pronounced Intel win: 60860 vs 58117, a 4.7% advantage. This demonstrates that despite AMD having more threads (32 vs 24), Intel's core count and higher clocks are sufficient to secure the multi-threaded crown.

Data compression and sorting favor AMD. The EPYC wins passmark_data_compression with 741648 vs 698346, a 5.8% margin. It also wins passmark_random_string_sorting with 87690 vs 79744, a 9.1% advantage. These results point to AMD's larger cache and memory subsystem being more effective for data manipulation workloads. The AMD chip also edges out Intel in passmark_extended_instructions (53774 vs 52338, a 2.7% win).

Intel secures the remaining wins in encryption and prime number calculation. The Ultra 9 scores 52563 in passmark_data_encryption, beating AMD's 45902 by 14.5%. It also wins passmark_find_prime_numbers with 503 vs 441, a 14.1% margin. The final tally is 12 wins for Intel and 5 for AMD across the 17 head-to-head tests.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has a higher average benchmark score of 84003, compared to the AMD EPYC 4584PX's 83090. This represents a 1.1% advantage for Intel.

Q: Is the Intel chip faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins all single-thread tests. It leads by 27.1% in passmark_single_thread (4823 vs 3795) and by 0.4% in all three Cinebench single-core tests (r15, r20, and r23).

Q: Where does the AMD EPYC 4584PX show its biggest advantage?

A: The AMD EPYC's biggest win is in passmark_physics, where it scores 4574 against Intel's 3315, a 27.5% margin. It also has a substantial 17.7% lead in passmark_integer_math (201919 vs 166194).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins every multi-core Cinebench test, but by a slim 0.4% margin. In passmark_multithread, Intel's lead expands to 4.7% (60860 vs 58117).

Q: Does the AMD EPYC have any advantages in memory-related tasks?

A: Yes. The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins passmark_data_compression by 5.8% (741648 vs 698346) and passmark_random_string_sorting by 9.1% (87690 vs 79744), indicating stronger memory bandwidth utilization for data-intensive operations.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has a higher boost clock of 5.80 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 4584PX's 5.70 GHz.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus for users prioritizing raw compute speed, especially in floating-point math and single-threaded tasks. Its 76.8% lead in floating-point math and 27.1% lead in single-thread performance are the largest performance gaps in this comparison. Furthermore, Intel wins all multi-core Cinebench tests and the passmark_multithread test, making it the better choice for general CPU rendering and processing workloads.

The AMD EPYC 4584PX is the superior processor for server and workstation tasks that demand high integer throughput and efficient data handling. Its 17.7% win in integer math and 27.5% win in physics are significant. The wins in data compression and random string sorting suggest that workloads involving large dataset manipulation or database-style operations will perform better on the AMD chip. However, given that Intel wins 12 of 17 benchmarks and holds the higher average score, the Ultra 9 290K Plus is the more versatile and faster overall processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel chip has a higher boost clock at 5.80 GHz vs 5.70 GHz, and a higher base clock at 3.70 GHz vs 4.20 GHz. The TDP is slightly higher on Intel at 125W vs 120W.

The memory bandwidth figures are notably different: Intel supports 115.2 GB/s, while AMD supports 83.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, and both have ECC memory support. The PCIe lane count differs, with AMD offering 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC does not. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $699.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. Intel's Core Ultra 9 290K Plus is built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC, using the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. It packs 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. It integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The AMD EPYC 4584PX uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, built on a 5 nm process node, also from TSMC. It has 17,840 million transistors spread across a dual-die design with 2x 71 mm² dies. The cache structure is different: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. This large L3 is augmented by a 1x 64MB Slice of 3D V-Cache, a feature the Intel chip lacks. The AMD chip also includes Radeon Graphics as its integrated GPU.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus wins in scenarios demanding high floating-point throughput, such as scientific simulations, financial modeling, and 3D rendering that utilizes FPU instructions. Its 76.8% lead in floating-point math makes it the clear choice. It is also the winner for single-threaded applications like legacy software, certain games, and scripting workloads, where its 27.1% single-thread advantage matters. The Intel chip also dominates encryption tasks, making it suitable for security-focused applications.

AMD EPYC 4584PX wins in server workloads that are integer-heavy, such as database transaction processing, virtualization hosts, and enterprise resource planning software. Its 17.7% lead in integer math and 27.5% lead in physics are key indicators. The chip's strength in data compression and random string sorting makes it ideal for file servers, backup systems, and data analytics pipelines. The 128MB L3 cache and 3D V-Cache are likely the drivers behind these data-centric wins, making the EPYC the better fit for memory-bound server applications.