AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8224P and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 sit at opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The EPYC 8224P posts an average benchmark score of 75,582, while the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 75,400, a difference of just 0.2%. Both occupy the 97th percentile among all CPUs. Despite this statistical tie, the two processors are built for entirely different workloads, with the data revealing a clear split between server-oriented throughput and desktop-oriented responsiveness.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 8224P is a server-class processor built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and features 24 cores with 48 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading. Its base clock is 2.55 GHz with a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The thermal design power is 160 W, and it fits into AMD Socket SP6. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. Memory support is DDR5 over a six-channel bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, and the chip offers PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes from the CPU. This is a dense, power-efficient design aimed at high-core-count server workloads, with no integrated graphics.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, in contrast, is a desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S. It also has 24 cores but only 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The base clock is 2.50 GHz, but the boost clock reaches 5.60 GHz, a much higher ceiling than the EPYC. The TDP is a modest 65 W, a fraction of the EPYC’s power envelope. It uses Intel Socket 1851 and is built on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 3 MB per core, and L3 is 36 MB shared. Memory is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth—less than half the EPYC’s throughput. ECC memory is supported, and it provides PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Core Ultra 9 285 also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units, a feature entirely absent on the EPYC. The die size is 243 mm², and it belongs to the desktop market segment.

The transistor counts are nearly identical between the two, but the architectural priorities diverge sharply. The EPYC 8224P sacrifices clock speed for core density and massive memory bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 9 285 leverages a higher boost clock and newer process node for single-thread performance. The EPYC’s six-channel memory and 96 PCIe lanes make it a platform for data movement, whereas the Core Ultra’s dual-channel memory and 20 lanes reflect desktop constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a lopsided contest in raw compute, with the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests. The most striking margin is in single-thread performance. In PassMark single-thread testing, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 against the EPYC’s 2,339, a 52.1% advantage. This gap is consistent across Cinebench single-core runs: R15 shows 684 versus 549, R20 shows 2,850 versus 2,289, and R23 shows 6,788 versus 5,450—each a 19.7% lead for Intel. The data indicates that the Core Ultra’s 5.60 GHz boost clock and newer architecture deliver decisive single-thread superiority.

Multi-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,087 against the EPYC’s 38,607, again a 19.7% advantage. R20 multi-core shows 20,196 versus 16,214, and R15 multi-core shows 4,847 versus 3,891. Even though both chips have 24 cores, the EPYC’s 48 threads do not compensate for its lower clock speed in these tests. The PassMark multi-thread score reinforces this: Intel wins 56,602 to 45,421, a 19.8% margin.

Floating-point math is another Intel stronghold. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 194,988 in PassMark floating-point math, compared to the EPYC’s 104,698—a 46.3% lead. Prime number finding shows a 55.1% advantage for Intel, with scores of 459 versus 206. Physics calculations favor Intel by 10.1%, with 3,598 versus 3,236. Extended instruction workloads also go to Intel, though narrowly, with 45,357 versus 43,614, a 3.8% edge. Data encryption is essentially a tie, with Intel at 46,949 and AMD at 46,742, a 0.4% difference.

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins only three tests, but they are meaningful. Data compression is its biggest victory: 702,065 versus 602,121, a 16.6% lead. Integer math also favors AMD, with 185,556 versus 164,869, a 12.5% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 81,674 versus 73,651, a 10.9% margin. These wins cluster around memory-intensive and integer-heavy operations, where the EPYC’s six-channel memory bus and larger 64 MB L3 cache provide tangible benefits.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor for latency-sensitive, single-threaded, and floating-point-heavy tasks. Its 19.7% lead across all Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, combined with a 52.1% single-thread PassMark advantage, makes it the obvious pick for desktop applications, content creation, and any workload that cannot scale across many threads. The 46.3% margin in floating-point math further solidifies its position for scientific computing and rendering.

The AMD EPYC 8224P, however, wins where memory bandwidth and integer throughput matter most. Its 16.6% data compression advantage and 12.5% integer math lead indicate strengths in database workloads, compression algorithms, and large-scale data processing. The six-channel memory bus, providing 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, is a structural advantage that the Core Ultra cannot match. For server environments where data movement is the bottleneck, the EPYC 8224P is the better choice.

Average benchmark scores place the EPYC 8224P 0.2% ahead of the Core Ultra 9 285, but this aggregate hides the divergent strengths. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins 14 of 17 tests, while the EPYC wins 3. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 8224P is $855, and for the Core Ultra 9 285 it is $579. The EPYC also offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus 20, and six-channel memory versus dual-channel, making it a platform for expansion, whereas the Core Ultra is a self-contained desktop powerhouse.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P has 48 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 threads. Both have 24 cores.

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in single-threaded PassMark testing?

A: The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 in PassMark single-thread, while the EPYC 8224P scores 2,339, giving Intel a 52.1% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P provides 230.4 GB/s over a six-channel DDR5 bus, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides 102.4 GB/s over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC 8224P has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which CPU wins in data compression benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P wins PassMark data compression with a score of 702,065 versus 602,121 for the Core Ultra 9 285, a 16.6% lead.

Q: What is the thermal design power of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P has a TDP of 160 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates in scenarios that reward high clock speeds and strong single-core performance. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock drives wins in every Cinebench test, where it leads by 19.7% across R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core. The 52.1% single-thread PassMark advantage makes it ideal for everyday desktop responsiveness, gaming, and applications with serial bottlenecks. Floating-point math is a categorical win for Intel, with a 46.3% margin that suits 3D rendering, physics simulations, and financial modeling. Prime number finding, with a 55.1% lead, further indicates strength in integer-heavy algorithm loops. The Core Ultra also wins in PassMark multithread by 19.8%, proving that even parallel workloads often favor its higher clocks over the EPYC’s extra threads.

The AMD EPYC 8224P wins where memory bandwidth and cache capacity are decisive. Its 64 MB L3 cache and six-channel memory bus deliver a 16.6% advantage in data compression, making it the better engine for file archiving, database compression, and streaming data workloads. Integer math, with a 12.5% lead, points to strength in database queries, network packet processing, and general server-side transaction handling. Random string sorting, up 10.9%, is a common operation in search indexing and data deduplication. The EPYC’s 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also make it the platform of choice for high-bandwidth peripherals like NVMe storage arrays and network accelerators, while the Core Ultra’s 20 lanes limit expansion. For a server rack handling many concurrent requests or processing large datasets, the EPYC 8224P’s wins in these three tests matter more than its losses in synthetic compute benchmarks.