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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a clear split: Intel wins 12 of 17 benchmark comparisons, while AMD takes 5. The Cinebench suite is uniformly Intel territory, with the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus leading by 1.7% across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. The R23 multi-core score of 42,718 versus 42,003 is a modest but consistent margin, and single-core R23 shows 6,030 versus 5,929, again a 1.7% gap. This consistency across every Cinebench iteration suggests a fundamental per-thread advantage for Intel in rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite tells a more complex story. AMD's EPYC 9115 dominates integer math with a 47.8% lead (181,807 versus 123,030), and physics testing shows a 31.6% advantage (4,188 versus 3,183). Data compression also favors AMD at 8.5% (600,099 versus 553,155), as does extended instructions at 6.1% (45,477 versus 42,880) and random string sorting at 4.4% (70,151 versus 67,209). These wins cluster around workloads that leverage the EPYC's larger shared L3 cache and higher thread count.

Intel's counterpunch comes in floating-point math, where it leads by 28.8% (159,824 versus 113,853), and in prime number finding, where the margin balloons to 36.1% (452 versus 289). Single-thread Passmark shows Intel ahead by 28.5% (4,698 versus 3,360), while data encryption favors Intel by 18.9% (41,292 versus 33,489). The multithread Passmark score is close, with Intel ahead 50,146 versus 48,936, a 2.4% edge.

The overall average benchmark scores place the EPYC 9115 at 69,288 versus Intel's 66,159, though the EPYC sits at the 94th percentile versus Intel's 93rd. The nearest rival data frames this differently: the EPYC's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-14700K at 69,355, a delta of -0.1%, while Intel's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914, a delta of +0.4%. The EPYC edges out the Ryzen 9 7950X by -0.3% and the Ryzen 9 7940HX by -0.8%, while Intel trails the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus by -1% and the AMD EPYC 4465P by -1.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more individual benchmark comparisons?

A: Intel wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while AMD wins 5. Intel's victories are concentrated in Cinebench rendering, floating-point math, encryption, prime number finding, and single-threaded Passmark tests.

Q: Where does AMD's EPYC 9115 have its largest advantage?

A: The biggest margin is in Passmark integer math, where AMD leads by 47.8% (181,807 versus 123,030). Physics testing shows a 31.6% advantage, and data compression is 8.5% ahead.

Q: How do the processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: Intel scores 42,718 versus AMD's 42,003, a 1.7% difference. The same 1.7% delta appears across all Cinebench versions, indicating a consistent per-core performance edge for Intel rather than a scaling advantage.

Q: What is the overall benchmark percentile ranking for each?

A: The EPYC 9115 ranks at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 69,288, compared to Intel's 66,159.

Q: Which processor has better single-threaded performance?

A: Intel is clearly ahead. Passmark single-thread shows 4,698 versus 3,360, a 28.5% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core also favors Intel at 6,030 versus 5,929, a 1.7% margin.

Q: Are there any workloads where the EPYC 9115 wins despite Intel's overall advantage?

A: Yes. AMD wins in integer math, physics, data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting. These are workloads that benefit from the EPYC's 32 threads and 64 MB shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD's EPYC 9115 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, using a 4 nm process at TSMC with 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die design of 2x 70.6 mm². Intel's Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process also at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a monolithic 243 mm² die.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while Intel provides 18 cores but only 18 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on the Core Ultra. The EPYC's per-core L1 cache is 80 KB and L2 is 1 MB, while Intel allocates 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core. The shared L3 cache tells a different story: AMD packs 64 MB shared, Intel only 30 MB. This 34 MB difference in last-level cache can heavily influence data-heavy workloads.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a theoretical bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s, while Intel runs dual-channel DDR5 at 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), Intel offers 20 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC targets the server/workstation market with an AMD Socket SP5, while Intel uses Socket 1851 for desktop.

The transistor counts and die sizes hint at different integration strategies. Intel's larger 243 mm² die with 3 nm process holds 17,800 million transistors, while AMD's two 70.6 mm² chiplets total 141.2 mm² but pack 16,630 million transistors. The EPYC's split-die approach enables better yields and lower manufacturing costs per die, while Intel's monolithic design simplifies interconnects but limits flexibility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9115 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 16 | 18 |

| Threads | 32 | 18 |

| Base clock | 2.60 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.10 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 64 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Memory bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe lanes | 128 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |

| Release date | 2024-10-09 | 2026-03-10 |

| Part number | 100-000001552 | SA4V3 |

Both processors share a 125 TDP, DDR5 memory support, ECC capability, no integrated graphics, and active production status. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $184, while the EPYC's launch MSRP is $726. Intel's boost clock exceeds AMD's by 1.20 GHz, and its base clock is 1.60 GHz higher. The EPYC compensates with 14 more threads and more than double the memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9115 is the clear choice for integer-heavy server workloads. Its 47.8% lead in integer math and 31.6% advantage in physics suggest strong ALU throughput and branch handling. Data compression at 8.5% ahead, extended instructions at 6.1%, and random string sorting at 4.4% point to workloads that benefit from the 64 MB L3 cache and 32 threads. The twelve-channel memory subsystem, with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, supports large data sets that would bottleneck the dual-channel Intel part. For database servers, scientific computing, or virtualization hosts, the EPYC's thread count and cache capacity align tightly with these benchmark wins.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus excels in single-threaded and floating-point scenarios. Its 28.5% lead in Passmark single-thread and 28.8% in floating-point math indicate strong per-core execution. The 36.1% advantage in prime number finding reflects fast integer divide and branch prediction. Data encryption at 18.9% ahead suggests hardware acceleration or better cryptographic instruction throughput. The base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost of 5.30 GHz give Intel a raw frequency advantage that directly translates to latency-sensitive desktop applications. For gaming, office productivity, or software compilation where single-thread speed dominates, Intel's 18 cores at high clocks provide responsive performance.

The multithread Passmark score is nearly even, with Intel ahead by just 2.4% despite having 14 fewer threads. This indicates Intel's per-core efficiency offsets the EPYC's thread count in mixed workloads. The Cinebench multi-core results, all within 1.7%, reinforce this: Intel's 18 cores at higher clocks match AMD's 32 threads at lower clocks.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off between server-grade throughput and desktop-oriented speed. The EPYC 9115 wins in workloads that leverage massive thread counts, large shared cache, and high memory bandwidth. Its 94th percentile ranking and average score of 69,288 place it among top-tier server processors, with nearest rivals like the Core i7-14700K at a 0.1% delta. For data centers, research clusters, or virtualized environments, the EPYC's 32 threads, 64 MB L3, and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the logical selection.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, despite a lower 93rd percentile and average score of 66,159, wins the majority of head-to-head tests. Its 12 benchmark victories, including all six Cinebench tests, demonstrate broad applicability. The 5.30 GHz boost clock, 18 cores, and unlocked multiplier position it for desktop users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness and overclocking flexibility. The launch MSRP of $184 versus $726 further separates their intended markets, though the EPYC's server features justify its positioning.

Buyers should choose based on workload profile rather than raw scores. If the application involves integer math, physics simulation, data compression, or large in-memory databases, the EPYC 9115's specialized wins are decisive. If the workload spans rendering, floating-point calculations, encryption, or general desktop productivity, Intel's consistent leads across Cinebench and Passmark make it the better fit. The two processors are not direct competitors; they serve adjacent but distinct computing ecosystems.