AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different roles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins 10 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 9124 takes 7. That raw count, however, hides the nature of the victories. The Intel part dominates in floating-point math, prime number finding, encryption, and single-threaded PassMark tests. The AMD part fights back in integer math, compression, sorting, physics, and the newer Cinebench R23 workloads.

Looking at the actual workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus shows its strength in compute-heavy parallel tasks. Its PassMark floating point math score of 162,692 crushes the EPYC's 87,057, a 86.9% advantage. The prime number test is even more lopsided: 486 versus 256, a 89.8% gap. Data encryption also goes Intel's way by 16.8%, with 42,144 against 36,078. These are classic number-crunching and cryptography workloads where the Intel architecture clearly has an edge.

The AMD EPYC 9124, despite losing the overall win count, takes the more modern Cinebench R23 multicore test decisively. It scores 37,269 versus Intel's 30,867, a 17.2% lead. The single-core R23 result is even more dramatic: 5,261 versus 2,261, a 57% advantage for AMD. This suggests the EPYC's Zen 4 cores are individually much stronger in certain rendering workloads, even though the Intel chip wins the older R15 and R20 multicore tests.

The PassMark multithread test goes to Intel with 51,596 against 43,846, a 17.7% margin. That aligns with Intel's wins in the older Cinebench versions. The EPYC answers in integer math (148,785 vs 125,091, a 15.9% lead), data compression (599,417 vs 568,721, a 5.1% edge), and random string sorting (74,177 vs 69,090, a 6.9% advantage). The physics test is close, with AMD ahead by just 4.6% (3,662 vs 3,494).

The picture that emerges is binary. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus excels in floating-point operations, encryption, prime number generation, and single-threaded PassMark performance. The AMD EPYC 9124 leads in integer-heavy tasks, compression, sorting, and the most recent Cinebench multicore and single-core render tests. Neither chip dominates across the board; they are built for different kinds of workloads.

The Verdict

The data directs each processor to a distinct audience. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with its 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, is the choice for workloads that stress floating-point math, encryption, and parallel single-thread throughput. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,757 is 75% higher than the EPYC's 2,719. For any application that relies heavily on cryptography, scientific computing, or prime number calculations, the Intel part is clearly superior.

The AMD EPYC 9124, also at the 93rd percentile, should be selected when integer math, data compression, and the latest Cinebench render tests matter most. Its 17.2% lead in R23 multicore and 57% lead in R23 singlecore are substantial. The EPYC also has the advantage in memory bandwidth on paper: 460.8 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s, and it supports twelve-channel memory against Intel's dual-channel. That memory architecture likely feeds its compression and sorting wins.

For a desktop user focused on general compute, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins more tests overall and has the higher average benchmark score of 66,855 versus 65,104. Its 18 cores and 18 threads are all physical, no simultaneous multithreading, yet it still outpaces the EPYC in multithreaded PassMark. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, while better for integer work, do not translate to overall benchmark supremacy.

The server or workstation buyer should look at the EPYC. Its twelve-channel memory, 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, and 200W TDP point to a platform designed for memory-heavy and I/O-heavy enterprise tasks. Its 64 MB of shared L3 cache is more than double the Intel's 30 MB. Those architectural features, combined with its wins in compression and integer math, make it the data-center candidate.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest Intel victory is in PassMark floating point math, where it scores 162,692 against the EPYC's 87,057, a 86.9% delta. The prime number test shows a similar story: 486 versus 256, an 89.8% lead. These are the two biggest gaps in the entire comparison.

The PassMark single-thread test, recorded twice in the data as both "single_thread" and "singlethread" with identical scores, gives Intel a 75% advantage: 4,757 versus 2,719. This is a strong indicator for desktop responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. Data encryption also favors Intel by 16.8%, with 42,144 against 36,078.

The Intel wins in Cinebench R15 multicore (4,640 vs 3,756, a 23.5% lead) and R20 multicore (18,442 vs 15,652, a 17.8% edge). The R20 singlecore also goes to Intel by 17.8% (2,603 vs 2,209). PassMark multithread adds another Intel victory at 17.7% (51,596 vs 43,846). Extended instructions go Intel's way by 2.7% (44,565 vs 43,380).

The AMD EPYC takes its biggest win in Cinebench R23 singlecore, scoring 5,261 against Intel's 2,261, a 57% margin. The R23 multicore result is also strongly AMD: 37,269 versus 30,867, a 17.2% lead. In integer math, the EPYC leads by 15.9% (148,785 vs 125,091). Random string sorting goes AMD by 6.9% (74,177 vs 69,090). Data compression favors AMD by 5.1% (599,417 vs 568,721). Physics is the closest test, with AMD ahead by 4.6% (3,662 vs 3,494).

The pattern is consistent: Intel wins the older render tests and floating-point math; AMD wins the newer render tests and integer operations. The R15 and R20 multicore results favor Intel, but the R23 results flip to AMD. That suggests a generational shift in how the benchmark loads the processors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66,855, while the AMD EPYC 9124 sits at 65,104.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4,757, which is 75% higher than the EPYC's 2,719.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 wins with 37,269 against the Intel's 30,867, a 17.2% lead.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each?

A: The Intel has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, compared to 20 on the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and the AMD EPYC 9124 have an active production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Its codename is Arrow Lake Refresh, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The AMD EPYC 9124 uses a 5 nm process, also from TSMC, with 26,280 million transistors spread across four 72 mm² dies. Its architecture is Zen 4, codename Genoa, from the EPYC 9004 series.

The memory systems differ sharply. The Intel part supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The AMD EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s, exactly four times higher. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a desktop part like the Intel.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's larger L3 cache is more than double the Intel's, which helps in data-heavy server workloads.

The Intel processor includes integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC has no integrated graphics at all, typical for a server part where a discrete GPU or management controller handles display output. PCIe connectivity also differs: Intel provides 20 Gen 5 lanes, AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes.

The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The AMD EPYC is locked. The Intel targets the desktop market with a launch MSRP of $199. The AMD targets server and workstation with a launch MSRP of $1083. The release dates are far apart: Intel on 2026-03-10, AMD on 2022-11-09.

Specification Differences

The base clock speeds differ: the Intel runs at 4.20 GHz, the AMD at 3.00 GHz. Boost clocks also favor Intel: 5.30 GHz versus 3.70 GHz for the EPYC. The Intel has 18 cores and 18 threads; the AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD uses simultaneous multithreading, the Intel does not.

The TDP ratings show the EPYC as the higher-power part: 200W versus 125W for the Intel. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1851 for the Intel chip, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. The process nodes differ as noted: 3 nm for Intel, 5 nm for AMD.

Transistor counts and die sizes are distinct. The Intel packs 17,800 million transistors into 243 mm². The AMD spreads 26,280 million transistors across four 72 mm² dies, totaling 288 mm². The cache specifications per core differ: Intel has 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core; AMD has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. Total L3 is 30 MB for Intel and 64 MB for AMD.

Memory bus width is a major differentiator: dual-channel for Intel, twelve-channel for AMD. Memory bandwidth reflects that: 115.2 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s. PCIe lane count is another split: 20 Gen 5 lanes for Intel, 128 Gen 5 lanes for AMD. The Intel includes integrated Arc graphics, the AMD does not. The Intel has an unlocked multiplier, the AMD is locked. The launch MSRP is $199 for Intel and $1083 for AMD. The release dates are 2026-03-10 for Intel and 2022-11-09 for AMD.