AMD EPYC 7343 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7343 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC 7343 offers simultaneous multithreading, giving it 14 more threads than the Intel part.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each processor?

A: Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855, while the AMD EPYC 7343 averages 64202.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus runs at a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boosts up to 5.30 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7343 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the AMD EPYC 7343 support ECC memory. However, the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads decisively in the PassMark single-thread test with 4757 points versus 2740 for the EPYC 7343, a 73.6% advantage. However, the EPYC 7343 wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (527 vs 328) and Cinebench R23 single-core (5237 vs 2261).

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC 7343 has no integrated graphics, as is typical for server processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear winner in most compute-heavy desktop workloads. It takes 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including large margins in floating-point math, encryption, and extended instruction workloads. The passmark_floating_point_math result is particularly lopsided: the Intel part scores 162692 versus 86311 for the EPYC, an 88.5% advantage. This makes the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus the better choice for workloads that emphasize floating-point throughput, such as scientific computing, rendering, and simulation tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7343 wins in integer math, data compression, physics simulation, and several Cinebench tests. Its passmark_integer_math score of 156033 beats the Intel chip's 125091 by 19.8%. The EPYC also takes Cinebench R23 multicore with 37097 points versus 30867 for the Intel part, a 16.8% lead, and wins Cinebench R15 single-core by a wide 37.8% margin. The EPYC 7343 is better suited for integer-heavy server workloads, data compression tasks, and physics-based calculations.

The PassMark multithread test goes to Intel, 51596 versus 43644, an 18.2% advantage. The Intel chip also wins PassMark data encryption by 12.5%, with 42144 points versus 37454. For random string sorting, the Intel part edges ahead by 2.2%, scoring 69090 versus 67576. In extended instructions, Intel leads by 25.1%, and in finding prime numbers, Intel leads by 27.2%. The overall picture is that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates most single-thread and SIMD-style workloads, while the EPYC 7343 holds its ground in integer-heavy and specific multithreaded scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on Arrow Lake Refresh, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, and uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The AMD EPYC 7343 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. The Intel chip packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die, while the EPYC 7343 spreads 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² chiplets.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 7343 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 pool is a hallmark of server-oriented designs, helping with data-heavy workloads that benefit from large on-die caching.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 7343 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC's memory subsystem delivers nearly double the bandwidth, which is crucial for server workloads that move large datasets. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 7343 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, giving the server chip far more expansion capability.

The Intel part includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, a feature absent from the EPYC 7343. The Intel chip also has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. The EPYC 7343 targets the server and workstation segment with its SP3 socket, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Socket 1851.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7343 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel chip clocks higher, with a 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost, compared to 3.20 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost for the EPYC. The Intel part has a 125 W TDP, while the EPYC 7343 draws 190 W. The Intel chip uses 3 nm process technology and is built on Arrow Lake Refresh, while the EPYC uses 7 nm and Zen 3 Milan architecture. Memory support differs: the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the Intel part offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes and the EPYC offering Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The Intel chip has integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics, while the EPYC has none. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC is locked. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199, while the EPYC 7343 has a launch MSRP of $1565. The Intel chip was released in 2026, while the EPYC 7343 was released in 2021.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single largest margin in the entire comparison belongs to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus in floating-point math. It scores 162692 against 86311 for the EPYC 7343, a 88.5% lead. This result underscores the Intel chip's strength in SIMD and floating-point execution, making it the obvious pick for workloads that rely heavily on such instructions.

In PassMark single-thread, the Intel part again dominates, 4757 versus 2740, a 73.6% advantage. This aligns with its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. The Intel chip also wins in extended instructions by 25.1%, prime number finding by 27.2%, and Cinebench R15 multicore by 24.1%. In Cinebench R20, the Intel chip wins both multicore (18442 vs 15580, an 18.4% lead) and single-core (2603 vs 2199, also 18.4%). PassMark multithread goes to Intel by 18.2%, and data encryption by 12.5%. Random string sorting is a narrow Intel win at 2.2%.

The AMD EPYC 7343 has its own set of wins. Its most striking victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5237 versus 2261 for the Intel part, a 56.8% margin. This is unusual given the Intel chip's higher clock speed, but the recorded data shows a substantial EPYC advantage. The EPYC also wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 37097 points versus 30867, a 16.8% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC wins 527 versus 328, a 37.8% margin. PassMark physics goes to the EPYC, 4774 versus 3494, a 26.8% lead. Integer math also favors the EPYC, 156033 versus 125091, a 19.8% margin. Data compression is a narrow EPYC win, 589770 versus 568721, a 3.6% edge.

The head-to-head record stands at 11 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and 6 wins for the AMD EPYC 7343. The Intel chip's wins tend to be larger in magnitude, especially in floating-point math, single-thread PassMark, and extended instructions. The EPYC's wins are concentrated in Cinebench tests, integer math, and physics, where its higher thread count and larger L3 cache likely contribute. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the Intel part averages 66855, while the EPYC averages 64202, a difference of 4.0% in favor of Intel. Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile, and each has close rivals within roughly 1% of its average score, indicating that both are highly competitive in their respective segments.