AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX and AMD EPYC 8224P are both 24-core processors that land within 0.6% of each other in average benchmark score (76024 vs 75582), yet they achieve parity through radically different means. The Intel chip is a mobile powerhouse with a 5.40 GHz boost clock and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC is a server-focused part with 48 threads and a modest 3.00 GHz boost. Benchmark results indicate the Intel part wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the AMD chip dominates in specific server workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is Intel's overwhelming dominance in single-threaded and floating-point workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 6777 against the EPYC 8224P's 5450, a 24.3% margin. This gap repeats across every Cinebench test: R15 single-core (683 vs 549), R20 single-core (2846 vs 2289), and R23 multi-core (48008 vs 38607) all show a consistent 24.4% advantage for Intel. The multi-core Cinebench results are especially telling because both chips have 24 cores — Intel's higher clocks and per-core efficiency overcome AMD's 48 threads in these rendering workloads.

PassMark single-thread results are even more lopsided. Intel scores 4727 versus AMD's 2339, a 102.1% advantage — more than double the performance. This is the single largest gap in the entire comparison. Floating-point math follows a similar pattern: Intel's 193324 is 84.6% ahead of AMD's 104698. Prime number finding shows a 121.8% advantage for Intel (457 vs 206), the largest percentage delta in any test. These results point to a fundamental architectural advantage for Intel in latency-sensitive and scalar workloads.

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins three tests, all in memory-throughput or integer-heavy categories. Data compression shows AMD ahead by 11.9% (702065 vs 618338), integer math by 15.8% (185556 vs 156314), and random string sorting by 7.3% (81674 vs 75710). These wins align with AMD's six-channel memory bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s. The EPYC's 48 threads also help in parallel integer workloads, even at lower clocks.

Intel's other wins are narrower but consistent. Data encryption edges ahead by 2.7% (48016 vs 46742), extended instructions by 9.3% (47687 vs 43614), and physics by 4.4% (3377 vs 3236). The multithread PassMark score favors Intel 56415 to 45421, a 24.2% margin that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core results. In every multi-threaded rendering test, the Intel part's 24 cores outperform AMD's 24 cores with 48 threads.

Comparing to the wider market, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX sits at the 97th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD EPYC 4545P at -0.5% and the EPYC 8224P at +0.6%. The AMD EPYC 8224P also holds the 97th percentile, with the Intel part listed as its nearest rival at -0.6%. These two chips are effectively tied in aggregate, but the distribution of wins could not be more different.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX leads by 24.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 48008 versus the AMD EPYC 8224P's 38607. The same 24.4% advantage appears in R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 8224P's 48 threads give it an advantage anywhere?

A: Yes, in PassMark integer math the EPYC scores 185556 versus Intel's 156314, a 15.8% win. It also wins data compression by 11.9% and random string sorting by 7.3%, likely benefiting from its 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus Intel's 102.4 GB/s.

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

A: Intel wins by 102.1% in PassMark single-thread (4727 vs 2339) and by 24.3-24.4% across all Cinebench single-core tests. The most extreme single-core result is Intel's 457 in find prime numbers versus AMD's 206, a 121.8% advantage.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier overall?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has an average benchmark score of 76024, and the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75582, a difference of only 0.6%. Both rank in the 97th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head tests?

A: Intel wins 14 of 17 tests. AMD wins 3: data compression, integer math, and random string sorting.

Q: What explains AMD's wins in data-heavy workloads?

A: The EPYC 8224P has a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, compared to Intel's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s. This memory throughput advantage likely powers its wins in compression, integer math, and string sorting.

The Verdict

For users running rendering workloads, scientific computing, or any single-threaded application, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is the clear choice. It wins every Cinebench test by 24.4%, doubles AMD's PassMark single-thread score, and leads floating-point math by 84.6%. The data shows no scenario in rendering or general-purpose compute where the EPYC 8224P catches up.

The AMD EPYC 8224P is the pick for server environments where memory bandwidth and integer throughput dominate. Its 15.8% lead in integer math and 11.9% lead in data compression, combined with six-channel memory and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, make it suited for database and data-processing workloads. The 48 threads also provide headroom for heavily parallel integer tasks.

The aggregate scores are nearly identical — 76024 versus 75582 — so the decision hinges entirely on workload. Intel wins the majority of tests, but AMD wins the tests that matter most for specific server use cases. The EPYC 8224P also offers ECC memory support, which the Intel part lacks, making it the safer choice for mission-critical data integrity.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in clock speed and power. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and boost of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 8224P runs at 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Intel's TDP is 55W versus AMD's 160W, reflecting the mobile versus server design targets.

Memory configuration is a major differentiator. Intel supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. AMD supports six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC enabled. PCIe connectivity also favors AMD: 96 Gen 5 lanes versus Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes.

The Intel part includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units; AMD has no integrated graphics. Intel's multiplier is unlocked, while AMD's is locked. The sockets differ: Intel uses BGA 2114, AMD uses Socket SP6. The AMD chip has a launch MSRP of $855; Intel has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Process nodes separate these chips by two generations. Intel uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, while AMD uses 5 nm TSMC. Transistor counts are nearly identical at 17,800 million for Intel and 17,750 million for AMD, but die sizes differ dramatically: Intel's monolithic die is 243 mm², while AMD uses two 73 mm² chiplets.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. Intel provides 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, with 36 MB shared L3. AMD provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 64 MB shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L2 likely contributes to its single-thread dominance, while AMD's larger L3 benefits multi-threaded data sharing.

Architecture generations also differ: Intel is Arrow Lake-HX (Ultra 9 series), while AMD is Zen 4c based on the Siena codename. The Intel part has 24 threads for 24 cores, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. AMD has 48 threads for 24 cores, enabling two threads per core. Intel's architecture emphasizes high-frequency execution, while AMD's Zen 4c design prioritizes density and efficiency across more threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins in every scenario that demands raw clock speed or single-core performance. This includes Cinebench rendering, where it leads by 24.4% across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests. It is the better choice for desktop-replacement laptops, mobile workstations, and any workload where frequency matters more than thread count.

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins in server environments with data-heavy workloads. Its 15.8% integer math lead and 11.9% data compression advantage, paired with 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth and 96 PCIe lanes, make it suited for virtualization, database servers, and storage applications. The 48 threads provide parallel processing capacity that Intel's 24 threads cannot match in these specific integer tasks.

For floating-point math, physics simulation, encryption, and extended instruction workloads, Intel wins by margins from 2.7% to 84.6%. The Intel part also wins PassMark multithread by 24.2%, despite having half the threads of AMD. This suggests that for most general-purpose computing, the Intel chip's higher clocks overcome AMD's thread advantage. The only clear AMD territory is memory-bandwidth-bound integer work, where its six-channel memory subsystem proves decisive.