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

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7352 and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus are fundamentally different tools. The EPYC 7352 is a server/workstation processor built for massive parallel throughput in enterprise workloads, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop chip designed for high single-thread speed and mainstream applications. The benchmark data confirms this split.

For a single-socket server or workstation handling encryption, compression, and integer-heavy database tasks, the EPYC 7352 is the clear choice. It wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including PassMark data compression by 19.4% and integer math by 20.8%. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide the parallel headroom that such workloads demand.

For nearly everything else, especially desktop use, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests by roughly 19.7%, and it crushes the EPYC in single-thread performance by 57.9% in PassMark. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz explains part of this gap. Gamers, content creators, and general desktop users should choose the Intel part without hesitation.

The data shows the EPYC 7352 sits at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, slightly above the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus at the 93rd percentile. However, the average benchmark score tells a more nuanced story: the EPYC scores 68118, while the Intel part scores 66159. The EPYC's advantage in the database's aggregate metric comes from its specialized server strengths, not from overall speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The EPYC has double the thread count due to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7352 boosts to 3.20 GHz. This explains the Intel part's 57.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 7352 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC provides nearly double the raw memory bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7352 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus have an "Active" production status in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark multithread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 50146 in PassMark multithread, compared to 40370 for the AMD EPYC 7352, a 19.5% advantage for Intel despite having fewer cores.

Q: Does the Intel processor have integrated graphics?

A: The database lists integrated graphics as "N/A" for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The AMD EPYC 7352 has no integrated graphics listed either, so both require a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7352 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the EPYC 7002 series and targets the server/workstation market segment. The chip contains 15,200 million transistors spread across four dies, each 74 mm² in size. It uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, built on a more advanced 3 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and targets the desktop market segment. The chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 1851 platform.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7352 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's massive 128 MB L3 cache suits server workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The EPYC 7352 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC's eight-channel interface gives it a bandwidth advantage for data-heavy server tasks.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The EPYC 7352 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The EPYC offers far more expansion lanes for storage and accelerators.

The unlock status differs: the AMD EPYC 7352 has a locked multiplier, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, meaning the Intel part offers manual overclocking headroom.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 24 cores and 48 threads for the AMD EPYC 7352 versus 18 cores and 18 threads for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The EPYC has 33% more cores and 167% more threads.

Base clocks differ significantly: 2.30 GHz for the EPYC versus 4.20 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks also differ: 3.20 GHz for the EPYC versus 5.30 GHz for Intel. The Intel part has a 65% higher boost clock.

Thermal design power differs: 155 W for the EPYC versus 125 W for the Intel part. The EPYC draws more power, consistent with its server orientation.

The release dates are far apart: the EPYC 7352 launched on 2019-08-06, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus launched on 2026-03-10. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7352 is $1350. The launch MSRP for the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is $184.

The process nodes differ: 7 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel. Transistor counts differ: 15,200 million for AMD versus 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes differ: 4x 74 mm² for AMD versus 243 mm² for Intel.

Memory support differs: DDR4 for AMD versus DDR5 for Intel. Memory buses differ: eight-channel for AMD versus dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth differs: 204.8 GB/s for AMD versus 115.2 GB/s for Intel.

PCIe support differs: Gen 4 with 128 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes for Intel. The market segments differ: Server/Workstation for AMD versus Desktop for Intel. The part numbers differ: 100-000000077 for AMD versus SA4V3 for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all six Cinebench tests by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 4305 versus 3458 for AMD, a 19.7% advantage. In R15 singlecore, Intel scores 607 versus 488, a 19.6% lead. In R20 multicore, Intel scores 17941 versus 14411, a 19.7% gap. In R20 singlecore, Intel scores 2532 versus 2034, a 19.7% lead. In R23 multicore, Intel scores 42718 versus 34314, a 19.7% gap. In R23 singlecore, Intel scores 6030 versus 4844, a 19.7% lead.

The pattern repeats in PassMark tests. Intel wins multithread with 50146 versus 40370, a 19.5% lead. Intel wins physics with 3183 versus 2688, a 15.6% advantage. Intel wins floating point math with 159824 versus 87969, a massive 45% lead. Intel wins extended instructions with 42880 versus 40203, a 6.2% edge. Intel wins prime numbers with 452 versus 301, a 33.4% advantage.

The single-thread gap is the most dramatic. In PassMark single_thread, Intel scores 4698 versus 1979 for AMD, a 57.9% lead. The same result appears in the singlethread test, also 4698 versus 1979, a 57.9% gap. This reflects the 5.30 GHz boost clock versus 3.20 GHz.

The AMD EPYC 7352 wins four PassMark tests. In data compression, AMD scores 660712 versus 553155 for Intel, a 19.4% lead. In data encryption, AMD scores 44426 versus 41292, a 7.6% edge. In integer math, AMD scores 148605 versus 123030, a 20.8% lead. In random string sorting, AMD scores 69231 versus 67209, a modest 3% advantage.

The wins are decisive in both directions. Intel leads by double digits in most tests, while AMD's wins range from 3% to 20.8%. The EPYC's 24 cores and 128 MB L3 cache drive its integer and compression advantages, while Intel's high clocks drive its single-thread and floating-point wins.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every Cinebench test, covering both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads. Its 45% lead in floating point math makes it the better choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any task relying on FPU throughput. Its 33.4% lead in prime number finding indicates strong raw integer execution speed. The 57.9% single-thread advantage makes it the clear pick for legacy software, lightly threaded applications, and responsive desktop use.

The AMD EPYC 7352 wins in data compression by 19.4%, making it superior for archival workloads, file server duties, and database compression operations. Its 20.8% lead in integer math suits EDA tools, cryptographic workloads, and transaction processing. The 7.6% encryption advantage matters for secure communications and VPN gateways. The 3% random string sorting win, while smaller, reinforces the EPYC's strength in text processing and data indexing.

For desktop users building a gaming PC or a workstation for video editing, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the obvious choice. Its higher clocks, unlocked multiplier, and DDR5 support align with consumer workloads. The EPYC 7352 is for server racks and workstation towers where eight-channel memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes matter more than clock speed. The data shows no overlap: these processors excel in different domains, and the benchmark results map cleanly to their intended market segments.