AMD EPYC 9115 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data reveals a starkly split picture between the AMD EPYC 9115 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Across the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, Intel edges out AMD by a narrow margin, taking 9 wins to AMD's 8. Yet the magnitude of those wins tells a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The most dramatic divergence appears in Cinebench R23. The AMD EPYC 9115 posts a multicore score of 42,003, which is 36.1% ahead of Intel's 30,867. Even more striking is the single-core result: AMD's 5,929 crushes Intel's 2,261, a delta of 162.2%. This is the single largest gap in the entire head-to-head set. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD again dominates with a score of 597 against Intel's 328, an 82% advantage.

However, the Intel part fights back in other render tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 4,640 versus AMD's 4,233, an 8.8% lead. In Cinebench R20, Intel wins both multicore (18,442 vs. 17,641, a 4.3% lead) and single-core (2,603 vs. 2,490, also 4.3%). This suggests a peculiar workload-dependent behavior: AMD wins big in R23, while Intel wins in R15 and R20.

PassMark results further complicate the narrative. AMD takes integer math with 181,807 vs. Intel's 125,091, a commanding 45.3% lead. AMD also wins data compression (600,099 vs. 568,721, up 5.5%), extended instructions (45,477 vs. 44,565, up 2%), physics (4,188 vs. 3,494, up 19.9%), and random string sorting (70,151 vs. 69,090, up 1.5%).

Intel counters with a massive win in floating-point math: 162,692 vs. 113,853, a 30% advantage. Intel also leads in data encryption (42,144 vs. 33,489, up 20.5%), find prime numbers (486 vs. 289, up 40.5%), and the PassMark multithread test (51,596 vs. 48,936, up 5.2%). In PassMark single-thread, Intel posts 4,757 vs. AMD's 3,360, a 29.4% lead.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this tension. The AMD EPYC 9115 carries an average benchmark score of 69,288 against Intel's 66,855. Yet the EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14700K at 69,355 (delta -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 69,515 (delta -0.3%), meaning the EPYC sits essentially neck-and-neck with those parts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, at its 93rd percentile, hovers near the AMD EPYC 4465P (66,925, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Xeon 6515P (67,006, delta -0.2%). The EPYC's 94th percentile versus Intel's 93rd shows both are top-tier parts, but with very different performance profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9115 shows its strength in integer-heavy and compression-oriented tasks. Its 45.3% lead in PassMark integer math and 5.5% lead in data compression point toward database, financial modeling, and general server-side integer workloads. The 19.9% win in physics simulation suggests strong performance in certain scientific or modeling applications. The 36.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore indicates that long-running, heavily threaded render jobs favor AMD significantly.

The 162.2% single-core advantage in Cinebench R23 is anomalous and worth questioning. It may reflect a driver or configuration difference in the recorded data, but taken at face value, it suggests AMD's Zen 5 architecture delivers exceptional per-thread performance in that specific benchmark. The 82% lead in R15 single-core reinforces this pattern, though the R20 single-core result flips to Intel by 4.3%.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus excels in floating-point mathematics, with a 30% lead. This makes it attractive for scientific computing, engineering simulations, and any workload that relies heavily on FPU throughput. Its 20.5% lead in data encryption and 40.5% lead in prime number finding indicate strong cryptography and mathematically intensive single-thread performance. The 29.4% lead in PassMark single-thread is notable, suggesting Intel's architecture handles general single-threaded desktop tasks more efficiently.

Intel also wins the PassMark multithread test by 5.2%, despite having fewer threads (18 threads vs. AMD's 32 threads). This is surprising and suggests that Intel's per-thread efficiency in that test outweighs AMD's thread count advantage. The Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore wins (8.8% and 4.3% respectively) further show that Intel can outperform in certain multithreaded scenarios, perhaps due to higher clock speeds.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear split: the AMD EPYC 9115 is the choice for integer-heavy server workloads, long-form rendering in Cinebench R23, and physics-based simulations. Its 36.1% lead in R23 multicore and 45.3% lead in integer math are decisive. The 94th percentile ranking, alongside an average score of 69,288 that nearly matches the Ryzen 9 7950X, confirms it is a high-end part.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is better suited for floating-point mathematics, encryption, and general single-threaded desktop responsiveness. Its 30% lead in floating-point math and 29.4% lead in PassMark single-thread make it a strong choice for desktop users who prioritize those areas. The 93rd percentile and average score of 66,855 place it just below the EPYC in aggregate, but the delta is small enough (roughly 3.6% based on the averages) that the specific workload matters more than the overall number.

Users who need massive thread counts, twelve-channel memory bandwidth, and server-grade cache capacity should look to the EPYC 9115. Users who want a desktop part with integrated graphics, higher clock speeds, and better floating-point throughput should choose the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. The data does not support a single universal winner; it supports two different tools for two different jobs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 has an average benchmark score of 69,288, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 66,855. The EPYC also holds a 94th percentile ranking versus Intel's 93rd.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 scores 5,929, which is 162.2% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's 2,261. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head dataset.

Q: Where does the Intel processor win by the biggest margin?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads by 40.5% in PassMark's find prime numbers test (486 vs. 289) and by 30% in floating-point math (162,692 vs. 113,853). It also leads by 29.4% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: Does the AMD processor have more threads?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 9115 has 32 threads across 16 cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 threads across 18 cores, meaning it has no hyperthreading.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 9 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 9115 wins 8.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9115 supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9115 is built on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die design with each die measuring 70.6 mm², totaling 2x 70.6 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename within the Core Ultra Series 2. It is fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. Its cache configuration is notably different: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 30 MB of shared L3.

The EPYC's larger L3 cache (64 MB vs. 30 MB) aligns with its server positioning. The Intel part compensates with much larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while Intel uses Socket 1851. Memory support differs fundamentally: the EPYC runs twelve-channel DDR5 with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel runs dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. Intel includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units; the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The EPYC's multiplier is locked, while Intel's is unlocked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD EPYC 9115 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the EPYC runs at 2.60 GHz, while Intel runs at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks also favor Intel, with 5.30 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.10 GHz. Both have a TDP of 125.

The process node differs: AMD uses 4 nm, Intel uses 3 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are close (16,630 million for AMD, 17,800 million for Intel), but die sizes are dramatically different: the EPYC uses two 70.6 mm² dies versus Intel's single 243 mm² die. Cache configurations diverge completely: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3; Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth is a major differentiator: 576.0 GB/s for the EPYC versus 115.2 GB/s for Intel. PCIe lane counts also differ: 128 lanes for AMD, 20 for Intel. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The EPYC is a server/workstation part released on 2024-10-09, while Intel's desktop part has a release date of 2026-03-10. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $726, while Intel's is $199. The EPYC's multiplier is locked; Intel's is unlocked. The part numbers are 100-000001552 and SA4UZ, respectively.