AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8124P and Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores sit nearly identical: 52121 for the AMD part versus 52073 for the Intel part, a delta of just 0.1%. This places both processors at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, with the AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (avg score 51947) and Intel Core i7-14700 (avg score 52301) hovering within 0.3% on either side. The core counts tell the story: the EPYC 8124P offers 16 cores and 32 threads on a 125W TDP, while the Core Ultra 5 235HX provides 14 cores and 14 threads at just 55W. These are fundamentally different designs—one a server part for Socket SP6, the other a mobile chip on BGA 2114—yet they trade blows across the benchmark suite in ways that reveal their distinct philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX dominates the Cinebench suite with a consistent 11.9% advantage across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, Intel scores 34731 against AMD’s 30611; in single-core, Intel posts 4903 versus 4321. The same 11.9% delta appears in R15 (3500 vs 3085 multicore, 494 vs 435 single-core) and R20 (14587 vs 12856 multicore, 2059 vs 1814 single-core). This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-core efficiency advantage for Intel’s Arrow Lake architecture, which becomes more pronounced in single-threaded workloads.

The single-thread gap reaches its extreme in PassMark’s single-thread test, where Intel scores 4683 against AMD’s 2271—a 51.5% deficit for the EPYC. That is the largest margin in the entire comparison. Intel also wins PassMark floating-point math decisively: 129819 versus 72395, a 44.2% lead. Extended instructions favor Intel by 14.8% (34808 vs 29666), and data encryption goes Intel’s way by 6% (32697 vs 30743). Even the prime number search, a workload that often rewards raw core counts, sees Intel ahead: 361 versus 222, a 38.5% margin.

AMD’s wins are fewer but substantial. The EPYC 8124P takes PassMark integer math by a wide 27.1% margin: 123513 versus 97177. It also excels in random string sorting, scoring 64067 against Intel’s 50929, a 25.8% advantage. Data compression goes AMD’s way by 9.8% (468411 vs 426417), and physics simulation shows AMD ahead by 31.6% (3356 vs 2550). In total, AMD claims 4 wins across the 17 benchmark comparisons, while Intel takes 13.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of workload separation. Intel’s Core Ultra 5 235HX wins every Cinebench test—both multicore and single-core—by the same 11.9% figure, indicating strong performance across rendering and general CPU-intensive tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4683 versus AMD’s 2271 suggests a massive advantage for latency-sensitive applications, web browsing, and lightly threaded productivity software. Floating-point workloads, such as scientific computing or financial modeling, also favor Intel by over 44%. The 14.8% lead in extended instructions points to better SIMD and vectorized code execution.

AMD’s EPYC 8124P counters in workloads that stress memory bandwidth and multi-threaded integer operations. Its 27.1% lead in integer math suggests strength in database transactions, compilation, and general server-side processing. The 25.8% advantage in random string sorting indicates superior memory subsystem performance for sorting and indexing tasks. Data compression, where AMD leads by 9.8%, benefits from the EPYC’s 64 MB of shared L3 cache versus Intel’s 24 MB. The physics simulation win (31.6%) hints at better multi-threaded coordination despite having fewer wins overall.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows no universal winner—the choice depends entirely on workload. For single-threaded performance, Intel’s Core Ultra 5 235HX is the clear pick. Its 51.5% lead in PassMark single-thread and 11.9% edge across every Cinebench test make it superior for desktop responsiveness, gaming, and applications that scale poorly across cores. The 44.2% floating-point advantage further cements Intel for scientific and analytical workloads. Mobile users benefit from the 55W TDP, which is less than half of AMD’s 125W.

For server and workstation deployments, the EPYC 8124P’s wins in integer math (27.1%), string sorting (25.8%), and data compression (9.8%) are exactly the workloads that dominate enterprise environments. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide better parallel throughput for database and virtualization workloads, and the six-channel memory bus (230.4 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel’s dual-channel 102.4 GB/s) supports memory-intensive operations. The EPYC also offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the Intel part, making it suitable for error-sensitive computing. The 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 20 lanes further differentiate the EPYC as the platform for I/O-heavy server configurations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P scores 52121 on average, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX scores 52073. The delta is 0.1% in AMD’s favor, making them effectively tied.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: Intel wins PassMark single-thread by 51.5%, scoring 4683 versus AMD’s 2271. Intel also leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 11.9% with 4903 versus 4321.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded rendering?

A: Intel wins every Cinebench multicore test by 11.9%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, Intel scores 34731 against AMD’s 30611.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes. AMD leads PassMark integer math by 27.1% (123513 vs 97177), random string sorting by 25.8% (64067 vs 50929), and physics simulation by 31.6% (3356 vs 2550).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P supports six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: AMD provides 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core. Intel provides 24 MB shared L3 and 3 MB L2 per core. AMD also has 64 KB L1 per core, while Intel has 192 KB L1 per core.

Architecture Differences

The two processors implement radically different design philosophies. AMD’s EPYC 8124P uses Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, codenamed Siena, part of the EPYC 8004 series. It packs 17,750 million transistors across a 2x 73 mm² die configuration. Intel’s Core Ultra 5 235HX uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Both use TSMC as foundry, but the process nodes differ—5 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and only 24 MB shared L3. The smaller L3 on Intel is compensated by larger per-core L1 and L2, which explains its single-thread advantage. AMD’s larger shared L3 benefits multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access the same data.

Memory support differs fundamentally: AMD uses six-channel DDR5 with ECC support and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth; Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 without ECC and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity also separates them: AMD offers 96 Gen 5 lanes, Intel offers 20 Gen 5 lanes. Intel includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units; AMD has no integrated graphics. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a $639 launch MSRP, while the Core Ultra 5 is a mobile part with no launch MSRP listed.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8124P | Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 14 |

| Threads | 32 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.45 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Siena | Arrow Lake-HX |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 4c (Siena)) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake-HX) |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 17,750 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 73 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $639 | Not listed |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001135 | SRVFL |

The boost clock difference is stark: Intel reaches 5.10 GHz versus AMD’s 3.00 GHz, a 70% higher ceiling. This explains Intel’s commanding single-thread lead. The thread count discrepancy—32 versus 14—shows AMD’s commitment to parallel throughput despite lower clock speeds. Intel’s unlocked multiplier offers overclocking flexibility on mobile, while AMD’s server part stays locked. The TDP gap (125W vs 55W) reflects the EPYC’s server orientation against Intel’s efficiency-focused mobile design.