AMD EPYC 7352 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7352 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus occupy different corners of the processor market, yet their benchmark results create a surprisingly complex comparison. The EPYC 7352 is a 24-core, 48-thread Zen 2 server chip built for AMD's Socket SP3 platform, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is an 18-thread desktop part on Intel's Socket 1851 with a 3 nm process. The data shows a split decision: Intel wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head tests, but AMD takes 7, including some of the most important multi-threaded workloads. This is not a simple "one is faster" story — it is a story about workload type, platform capability, and architectural priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most dramatic result in this comparison is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The EPYC 7352 scores 4844, which is 114.2% higher than the Core Ultra 5's 2261. That is not a small margin; it is a landslide, and it reflects the EPYC's higher per-core L1 and L2 cache allocation combined with its server-oriented design. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC wins 488 to 328, a 48.8% advantage. In these tests, the EPYC's older Zen 2 architecture outperforms Intel's newer Arrow Lake Refresh design by a wide margin.

However, the Intel part strikes back hard in other single-threaded benchmarks. In PassMark single-thread, the Core Ultra 5 scores 4757 versus the EPYC's 1979 — a 58.4% deficit for AMD. The PassMark single-thread test rewards the Core Ultra 5's 5.30 GHz boost clock and 4.20 GHz base clock, which dwarf the EPYC's 3.20 GHz and 2.30 GHz respectively. The two chips clearly respond differently to different test methodologies.

Moving to multi-core, the picture flips again. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7352 wins 34314 to 30867, an 11.2% lead. This is the classic server-chip territory: 24 cores with 48 threads outmuscle 18 threads. The EPYC also wins PassMark integer math 148605 to 125091, an 18.8% advantage. In PassMark data compression, the EPYC takes a 16.2% win (660712 to 568721), and in data encryption it edges ahead by 5.4% (44426 to 42144).

Yet the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus dominates several multi-threaded tests that favor its architecture. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, Intel wins 18442 to 14411, a 21.9% margin. The same deltaPct appears in Cinebench R20 single-core (2603 to 2034, also -21.9% for AMD). In PassMark multithread, Intel wins 51596 to 40370, a 21.8% lead. The most lopsided multi-core result is PassMark floating-point math: Intel scores 162692 versus AMD's 87969, a 45.9% blowout. Intel also wins PassMark physics 3494 to 2688 (23.1%) and PassMark find prime numbers 486 to 301 (38.1%).

The final tally is 10 wins for Intel and 7 for AMD, but the wins are not evenly distributed. Intel's wins tend to be in floating-point, physics, and prime-number workloads — areas where its 3 nm process and high clocks shine. AMD's wins are in integer math, compression, encryption, and the newer Cinebench R23 tests. The random string sorting test is a near-tie: AMD wins 69231 to 69090, just 0.2% apart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has a higher average benchmark score of 68118, compared to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's 66855. The EPYC also sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel sits in the 93rd.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7352's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 9184X, which scores 68202, a delta of -0.1%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's closest rival is the AMD EPYC 4465P, scoring 66925, also a -0.1% delta. Both chips are effectively tied with their nearest competitors.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The EPYC has 6 more cores and 30 more threads.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7352 boosts to 3.20 GHz. Intel's boost clock is 2.10 GHz higher.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 supports eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports dual-channel memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does either chip include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 7352 has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is stark. The AMD EPYC 7352 is built on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It consists of four dies, each measuring 74 mm², totaling 15,200 million transistors. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC, with a single 243 mm² die containing 17,800 million transistors.

Cache organization differs fundamentally. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die and a total of 128 MB of L3. The Intel chip provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's total L3 is 128 MB, which is over four times the Intel's 30 MB. This explains the EPYC's dominance in Cinebench R23 single-core and data compression, where large caches reduce memory latency.

The EPYC's memory controller is also architecturally different: it supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. That is a 77.8% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which directly benefits heavily threaded workloads that stream data. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's 128 lanes are six times the Intel's 20, making it suitable for massive expansion.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight how differently these processors are positioned. The AMD EPYC 7352 is a server/workstation part with a 155 W TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop chip with a 125 W TDP. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and boost clock of 3.20 GHz; Intel has a 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The EPYC's multiplier is locked, while Intel's is unlocked.

Memory support differs: the EPYC uses DDR4, Intel uses DDR5. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, Intel uses Socket 1851. The release dates are also far apart: the EPYC launched on 2019-08-06, while the Intel chip launched on 2026-03-10. The launch MSRP for the EPYC is $1350, and for the Intel it is $199. The EPYC's part number is 100-000000077, and Intel's is SA4UZ.

The transistor counts and die sizes are notable. The EPYC has 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies. The Intel has 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. The Intel chip has more transistors despite being a smaller process node (3 nm vs 7 nm), but the EPYC's multi-die design allows for more L3 cache and memory channels.

The Verdict

The data does not support a universal winner. The AMD EPYC 7352 wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core, PassMark integer math, data compression, data encryption, and random string sorting — with a 94th percentile standing and a higher average benchmark score. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, Cinebench R20 single-core, PassMark multithread, floating-point math, physics, prime numbers, and single-thread tests — with a 93rd percentile.

For a builder prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput in server-style workloads like compression, encryption, and large L3 cache processing, the EPYC 7352 is the data-backed choice. Its 128 MB of L3 and eight-channel memory bandwidth are unmatched by the Intel part. For a desktop user who values high clock speeds, floating-point performance, and integrated graphics, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear pick. The Intel chip's 45.9% win in floating-point math and 58.4% win in PassMark single-thread are decisive for those workloads.

The launch MSRP difference is significant: $1350 for the EPYC versus $199 for the Intel. That price gap reflects the server platform's additional memory channels, PCIe lanes, and core count. The EPYC's 48 threads versus Intel's 18 threads is a 167% advantage in thread count, but Intel's higher clocks partially compensate in latency-sensitive tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7352 wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (34314 vs 30867, 11.2%), Cinebench R23 single-core (4844 vs 2261, 114.2%), Cinebench R15 single-core (488 vs 328, 48.8%), PassMark integer math (148605 vs 125091, 18.8%), PassMark data compression (660712 vs 568721, 16.2%), PassMark data encryption (44426 vs 42144, 5.4%), and PassMark random string sorting (69231 vs 69090, 0.2%). These wins cluster around integer-heavy, data-moving, and cache-sensitive workloads. The EPYC is the better choice for database workloads, file compression, and encryption tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4640 vs 3458, 25.5%), Cinebench R20 multi-core (18442 vs 14411, 21.9%), Cinebench R20 single-core (2603 vs 2034, 21.9%), PassMark multithread (51596 vs 40370, 21.8%), PassMark floating-point math (162692 vs 87969, 45.9%), PassMark physics (3494 vs 2688, 23.1%), PassMark find prime numbers (486 vs 301, 38.1%), and PassMark single-thread (4757 vs 1979, 58.4%). These wins favor floating-point calculations, physics simulation, and single-thread responsiveness. The Intel chip is the better choice for desktop productivity, scientific computing with FP-heavy code, and any workload that benefits from a 5.30 GHz boost clock.

The overall win count is 10 for Intel and 7 for AMD, but the EPYC's wins include the heavier multi-threaded Cinebench R23 test and the 114.2% single-core Cinebench R23 blowout. The data suggests that the EPYC 7352 is the stronger all-around server processor, while the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger desktop processor for clock-sensitive tasks. Choose based on your workload's dominant benchmark category.