AMD EPYC 8124P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285T Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear split: the AMD EPYC 8124P and Intel Core Ultra 9 285T are both capable processors, but they excel in different domains. The Intel chip wins the majority of head-to-head tests, but the AMD processor's victories are decisive in specific workloads that matter for server environments. While the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T takes 13 of the 17 benchmark comparisons, the AMD EPYC 8124P wins 4 tests by substantial margins, making it the better choice for certain specialized tasks. The data shows that the Intel part is the overall performance leader, but the AMD EPYC 8124P remains a strong option for specific server-side workloads.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T is the superior processor for most users, based on its win count and the breadth of its victories. It wins all six Cinebench tests, including a 8.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (33573 vs 30611) and a 8.8% lead in single-core (4739 vs 4321). The Intel chip also dominates in PassMark floating point math, scoring 137923 versus 72395, a 47.5% advantage, and in single-thread performance with a 50.4% lead (4576 vs 2271). This makes it the clear choice for general-purpose computing, content creation, and any workload that benefits from high clock speeds.

However, the AMD EPYC 8124P is the better option for specific server workloads. It wins PassMark data compression by 21.9% (468411 vs 384140), random string sorting by 34.3% (64067 vs 47695), and physics by 18.1% (3356 vs 2842). The AMD chip also leads in extended instructions by 8% (29666 vs 27477). If your primary tasks involve data compression, string manipulation, or physics simulations, the EPYC 8124P offers a significant advantage. The Intel chip wins in encryption by 4.1% (32061 vs 30743), but the AMD part's other victories are more substantial.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures designed for different purposes. The AMD EPYC 8124P uses the Zen 4c architecture (codename Siena) on a 5 nm TSMC process, with 16 cores and 32 threads. It features a 2x 73 mm² die size with 17,750 million transistors. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S) on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 24 cores and 24 threads on a 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors. The Intel part has a higher core count but no hyper-threading, resulting in 24 threads compared to the AMD's 32.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The AMD EPYC 8124P has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The AMD's larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB) supports its performance in data-heavy workloads, while Intel's larger per-core L2 cache (3 MB vs 1 MB) helps with single-thread performance. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, but the AMD uses six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s. The AMD also offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 20, reflecting its server orientation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T, with a consistent 8.8% delta across all tests. This includes R15 multi-core (3384 vs 3085), R15 single-core (477 vs 435), R20 multi-core (14100 vs 12856), R20 single-core (1990 vs 1814), R23 multi-core (33573 vs 30611), and R23 single-core (4739 vs 4321). This consistency indicates a fundamental performance advantage in rendering workloads, likely due to the Intel's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus the AMD's 3.00 GHz.

The PassMark results tell a more varied story. The AMD EPYC 8124P's biggest win is in random string sorting, where it leads by 34.3% (64067 vs 47695). It also wins data compression by 21.9% (468411 vs 384140), physics by 18.1% (3356 vs 2842), and extended instructions by 8% (29666 vs 27477). The Intel chip's largest victory is in single-thread performance with a 50.4% lead (4576 vs 2271), followed by floating point math at 47.5% (137923 vs 72395). Intel also wins find prime numbers by 35.7% (345 vs 222), multithread by 9.8% (39931 vs 36014), integer math by 6.7% (132433 vs 123513), and data encryption by 4.1% (32061 vs 30743).

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T leads in all Cinebench multi-core tests by 8.8%, including R23 multi-core with 33573 versus the AMD's 30611.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8124P win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the AMD wins 4 of 17 tests: data compression (468411 vs 384140), random string sorting (64067 vs 47695), physics (3356 vs 2842), and extended instructions (29666 vs 27477).

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has a 50.4% advantage in PassMark single-thread (4576 vs 2271) and an 8.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (4739 vs 4321).

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P offers 230.4 GB/s with six-channel DDR5, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T provides 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD has more threads despite fewer cores due to hyper-threading.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P has a 64 MB shared L3 cache, compared to the Intel's 36 MB shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8124P is the winner in workloads involving data compression, random string sorting, physics simulations, and extended instruction sets. Its 21.9% lead in data compression and 34.3% lead in random string sorting make it ideal for database management, file archiving, and text processing. The 18.1% advantage in PassMark physics suggests better performance in simulation and scientific computing tasks. With six-channel memory providing 230.4 GB/s bandwidth and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the AMD is built for server environments where memory throughput and I/O connectivity are critical.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285T wins in almost every other category, particularly single-thread and floating-point workloads. Its 50.4% lead in single-thread performance and 47.5% lead in floating point math make it the better choice for general desktop use, gaming, and applications that rely on high clock speeds. The 8.8% Cinebench advantage in both single and multi-core tests indicates strong rendering performance. The Intel chip's 35.7% lead in find prime numbers suggests better integer-heavy computation, and its 4.1% edge in encryption makes it slightly better for security-related tasks. With a 35 W TDP versus the AMD's 125 W, the Intel part is also far more power-efficient.

Specification Differences

The AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285T has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD's base clock is 2.45 GHz with a boost of 3.00 GHz, while the Intel has a 1.40 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. TDP differs dramatically: 125 W for the AMD versus 35 W for the Intel. The AMD uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD's process node is 5 nm, while the Intel uses 3 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are nearly identical at 17,750 million (AMD) and 17,800 million (Intel), but die sizes differ at 2x 73 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel.

Cache allocations are distinct: the AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 shared, while the Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB L3 shared. Memory support differs in channel count and bandwidth: six-channel with 230.4 GB/s for the AMD, dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s for the Intel. PCIe lanes also differ, with the AMD offering 96 Gen 5 lanes versus the Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes. The Intel includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the AMD has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. The AMD was released on 2023-09-17 with a launch MSRP of $639, while the Intel arrived on 2025-01-06 with a launch MSRP of $549.