AMD EPYC 7343 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7343 and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX represent two fundamentally different approaches to computing: a 16-core server processor built for sustained throughput versus a 20-core mobile chip designed for high clock speeds and efficiency. The benchmark data shows a clear split, with the EPYC 7343 winning 7 of 17 head-to-head tests while the Core Ultra 7 255HX takes 10. Despite the Intel part’s higher win count, the nature of those victories and the scale of the AMD wins paint a more nuanced picture than a simple tally suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic result in the entire comparison is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the AMD EPYC 7343 scores 5237 against the Core Ultra 7 255HX’s 2163, a decisive 142.1% advantage. This is an outlier that highlights how benchmark versions can favor different architectural strengths; the Intel part’s PassMark single-thread score of 4562 versus 2740 for the EPYC tells the opposite story, giving Intel a 39.9% lead in that test. The Cinebench R15 single-core result also favors AMD, with a 527 score versus Intel’s 327, a 61.2% margin.

Moving to multi-core workloads, the results are more balanced but still show clear winners per test. The Core Ultra 7 255HX leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core with 4916 versus 3739 (a 23.9% gap) and in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 17187 versus 15580 (9.4% ahead). However, the EPYC 7343 reverses this in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 37097 against Intel’s 32612, a 13.8% win. This back-and-forth suggests that the two processors respond very differently to the specific workload scaling in each Cinebench version.

The PassMark suite reveals where each chip’s architecture excels. Intel’s Core Ultra 7 255HX dominates floating-point math with a score of 160624 versus 86311 for the EPYC, a massive 46.3% margin. It also wins in extended instructions (41247 vs 35626, 13.6% ahead), data encryption (39499 vs 37454, 5.2% ahead), and find prime numbers (400 vs 382, 4.5% ahead). The EPYC 7343 counters with strong wins in integer math (156033 vs 127126, 22.7% ahead), data compression (589770 vs 515143, 14.5% ahead), and physics (4774 vs 2926, 63.2% ahead). The random string sorting test goes to AMD by a narrow 8% margin (67576 vs 62591).

The overall multithread score in PassMark favors Intel at 48234 versus 43644, a 9.5% difference, while the single-thread test also goes to Intel at 4562 versus 2740, a 39.9% gap. These aggregate scores suggest that while the EPYC has specific strengths, the Core Ultra 7 255HX maintains a more consistent lead across the broader PassMark workload mix.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7343 is the clear choice for integer-heavy and compression-focused workloads. Its 22.7% lead in integer math and 14.5% advantage in data compression point to strong performance in database operations, financial modeling, and general server-side processing. The 63.2% win in physics simulation is particularly notable, suggesting excellent performance in scientific computing and physics-based rendering tasks. The Cinebench R23 multi-core victory by 13.8% also indicates that the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads can outperform Intel’s 20 cores and 20 threads in sustained rendering workloads, likely due to the threading advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX excels in floating-point mathematics, where its 46.3% lead is the largest of any benchmark. This makes it well-suited for scientific simulations, 3D modeling, and any workload that relies heavily on FPU performance. Its wins in extended instructions (13.6%) and data encryption (5.2%) suggest strength in cryptography and vectorized code. The 39.9% lead in single-thread performance across PassMark tests makes it better for lightly-threaded applications like legacy software, certain games, or general desktop responsiveness. The 9.5% win in overall multithread score also indicates better aggregate performance across mixed workloads.

The data shows that for pure floating-point throughput and single-thread responsiveness, the Core Ultra 7 255HX is superior. For integer processing, data compression, and physics calculations, the EPYC 7343 holds a clear advantage. The choice between them depends entirely on which workload profile matches the user’s primary applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7343 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz.

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

A: The results are mixed. Intel wins PassMark single-thread by 39.9% (4562 vs 2740), but AMD wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 142.1% (5237 vs 2163) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 61.2% (527 vs 327).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7343 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Is there a difference in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The AMD EPYC 7343 has eight-channel memory support with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has dual-channel memory with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor wins in floating-point math?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins decisively with a score of 160624 versus 86311 for the EPYC, a 46.3% advantage.

Q: What is the production status of both processors?

A: Both the AMD EPYC 7343 and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX are listed as Active in production.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD EPYC 7343 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for AMD and 2.40 GHz for Intel, but boost clocks reverse this with Intel at 5.20 GHz versus AMD at 3.90 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) differs substantially: 190 for the EPYC versus 55 for the Core Ultra 7.

Memory support is another major divergence. The EPYC 7343 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported by the AMD part but not by the Intel part. PCIe capabilities show AMD with Gen 4 and 128 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The cache configurations are very different. AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The Intel part includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64EU, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Core Ultra 7 uses Intel BGA 2114. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, but the AMD part does not.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7343 is built on the Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan, part of the EPYC 7003 series. It uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC and contains 16,600 million transistors across a die size of 4x 81 mm². This is a server/workstation part released on March 14, 2021, with a launch MSRP of $1565.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-HX, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is built on a 3 nm process node from TSMC and contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. This is a mobile part released on January 12, 2025. The Intel processor features integrated graphics, which the AMD part lacks, and supports DDR5 memory versus DDR4 for AMD.

The transistor counts are similar (16,600 million for AMD versus 17,800 million for Intel), but the process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 3 nm. The L3 cache is notably larger on the AMD part at 128 MB shared versus 30 MB shared, which likely contributes to its strong integer and compression performance. The Intel part’s higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz versus 3.90 GHz helps explain its floating-point and single-thread advantages despite the lower base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz.

The Verdict

The data supports different choices depending on the workload. For server and workstation applications that prioritize integer math, data compression, physics simulation, and high memory bandwidth, the AMD EPYC 7343 is the stronger option. Its 22.7% lead in integer math, 14.5% advantage in compression, and 63.2% win in physics, combined with 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, make it well-suited for database servers, financial applications, and scientific computing that benefits from its 32 threads and 128 MB L3 cache.

For mobile users who need floating-point performance, single-thread speed, and energy efficiency, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the better fit. Its 46.3% lead in floating-point math, 39.9% advantage in single-thread performance, and significantly lower TDP of 55 versus 190 make it ideal for laptops requiring strong FPU performance or responsiveness in lightly-threaded tasks. The integrated graphics also provide a display output capability that the EPYC lacks.

The overall benchmark averages are close, with the EPYC at 64202 and the Core Ultra 7 at 62738, a difference of less than 2.5%. Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The EPYC 7343’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-13900KS with a delta of 0.2%, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 at -0.2%. These figures confirm that both are high-performing parts, but the choice comes down to workload-specific strengths rather than overall superiority.