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

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and the AMD EPYC 9124 are both 93rd-percentile CPUs, yet they are engineered for entirely different arenas. The Intel part is a high-boost desktop processor with a 5.30 GHz clock, while the AMD EPYC is a twelve-channel server workhorse. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: Intel dominates in latency-sensitive and floating-point tasks, while AMD counters decisively in integer-heavy and memory-throughput workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking outcome is the near-uniform victory for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 42,718 against AMD’s 37,269, a 14.6% lead. The same 14.6% delta appears in R20 multi-core (17,941 vs 15,652) and R15 multi-core (4,305 vs 3,756), indicating a consistent architectural advantage in threaded rendering. Single-core results are equally lopsided: Intel wins R23 single-core by 14.6% (6,030 vs 5,261), R20 by 14.6% (2,532 vs 2,209), and R15 by 14.5% (607 vs 530). This is not a marginal edge; it is a systematic superiority in every Cinebench iteration.

The Passmark suite tells a more nuanced story. Intel’s floating-point math score of 159,824 crushes AMD’s 87,057 by 83.6%, the largest delta in the entire comparison. This aligns with Intel’s higher boost clock and newer 3 nm process. Intel also dominates in single-thread performance, posting 4,698 versus AMD’s 2,719, a 72.8% advantage. The gap extends to prime number finding, where Intel scores 452 against AMD’s 256, a 76.6% lead. Data encryption also favors Intel, 41,292 vs 36,078, a 14.5% edge.

However, AMD claims five wins, and they are strategically significant. The EPYC 9124 leads in integer math by 17.3% (148,785 vs 123,030), a workload that leverages its 32 threads versus Intel’s 18. AMD also wins in data compression, 599,417 vs 553,155, a 7.7% margin, and in random string sorting, 74,177 vs 67,209, a 9.4% edge. Physics simulation favors AMD by 13.1% (3,662 vs 3,183), and extended instructions see a narrow AMD win of 1.2% (43,380 vs 42,880). The total scoreboard reads 12 wins for Intel and 5 for AMD, but the Passmark multi-thread test shows Intel ahead at 50,146 vs 43,846, a 14.4% margin, despite AMD having 14 more threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tasks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is decisively faster. It scores 4,698 in Passmark single-thread versus the AMD EPYC 9124’s 2,719, a 72.8% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core results confirm this, with Intel at 6,030 and AMD at 5,261.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC 9124 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, it wins five categories. The largest is integer math, where it scores 148,785 against Intel’s 123,030, a 17.3% lead. It also wins data compression (599,417 vs 553,155), random string sorting (74,177 vs 67,209), physics (3,662 vs 3,183), and extended instructions (43,380 vs 42,880).

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: Intel wins every multi-core Cinebench test by 14.6%. In Cinebench R23, Intel scores 42,718 against AMD’s 37,269. The Passmark multi-thread test also favors Intel, 50,146 vs 43,846, despite AMD having 32 threads to Intel’s 18.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark floating-point math, where Intel leads by 83.6% (159,824 vs 87,057). The second-largest is in Passmark single-thread, with Intel ahead by 72.8% (4,698 vs 2,719).

Q: Which CPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has a substantially higher memory bandwidth at 460.8 GB/s, compared to Intel’s 115.2 GB/s. This is due to AMD’s twelve-channel memory bus versus Intel’s dual-channel.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. However, their average benchmark scores differ slightly: Intel’s average is 66,159, while AMD’s is 65,104.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. Intel’s Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the AMD EPYC 9124 is built on Zen 4 (Genoa) using a 5 nm TSMC node. Intel integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die; AMD packs 26,280 million transistors across four 72 mm² chiplets. This chiplet design explains AMD’s higher transistor count and its twelve-channel memory controller feeding 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, versus Intel’s dual-channel 115.2 GB/s.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but shares 64 MB of L3. The larger L3 on AMD is typical for server workloads with massive datasets, while Intel’s larger per-core L2 favors latency-sensitive desktop applications. Neither CPU uses 3D V-Cache.

The core topology is equally distinct. Intel has 18 cores and 18 threads — no simultaneous multithreading — while AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads, doubling thread count via SMT. Intel’s boost clock reaches 5.30 GHz from a 4.20 GHz base, whereas AMD’s boost is just 3.70 GHz from a 3.00 GHz base. The 1.60 GHz boost advantage for Intel explains its single-thread dominance. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but AMD’s twelve-channel implementation is a server-grade feature absent from Intel’s dual-channel desktop design.

PCIe connectivity also separates them. Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. This 108-lane difference underscores AMD’s workstation/server positioning. Intel’s multiplier is unlocked, enabling overclocking; AMD’s is locked. Intel has no integrated graphics, and AMD’s integrated graphics field is null. Intel’s TDP is 125 W, while AMD’s is 200 W, reflecting the EPYC’s server power envelope. Both are currently in active production.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Intel has 18 cores; AMD has 16 cores.
• Threads: Intel has 18 threads; AMD has 32 threads.
• Base Clock: Intel’s is 4.20 GHz; AMD’s is 3.00 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Intel’s is 5.30 GHz; AMD’s is 3.70 GHz.
• TDP: Intel’s is 125 W; AMD’s is 200 W.
• Socket: Intel uses Socket 1851; AMD uses Socket SP5.
• Process Node: Intel uses 3 nm; AMD uses 5 nm.
• Transistors: Intel has 17,800 million; AMD has 26,280 million.
• Die Size: Intel is 243 mm²; AMD is 4x 72 mm².
• L1 Cache: Intel has 192 KB per core; AMD has 64 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: Intel has 3 MB per core; AMD has 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: Intel has 30 MB shared; AMD has 64 MB shared.
• Memory Bus: Intel is dual-channel; AMD is twelve-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Intel has 115.2 GB/s; AMD has 460.8 GB/s.
• PCIe Lanes: Intel has 20; AMD has 128.
• Multiplier: Intel is unlocked; AMD is locked.
• Release Date: Intel is 2026-03-10; AMD is 2022-11-09.
• Launch MSRP: Intel is $184; AMD is $1083.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear winner for any workload prioritizing single-thread speed, floating-point math, or Cinebench rendering. Its 14.6% lead across all Cinebench tests and 83.6% margin in floating-point math make it the better choice for desktop applications, content creation, and any task that cannot fully utilize massive thread counts. The unlocked multiplier and 125 W TDP further position it as a high-frequency consumer part.

The AMD EPYC 9124 is the pick for integer-heavy, memory-bandwidth-bound server workloads. Its 17.3% lead in integer math and 7.7% advantage in data compression, combined with 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe lanes, make it the superior platform for database, virtualization, and large-scale data processing. The 32 threads, despite a lower clock, provide throughput advantages in parallel integer tasks.

The data shows that neither CPU is universally better; they serve different masters. Intel wins 12 benchmarks, AMD wins 5, but the wins are clustered by workload type. Buyers needing maximum single-thread responsiveness and floating-point horsepower should choose Intel. Buyers needing massive memory throughput, high lane counts, and integer throughput should choose AMD. The 93rd-percentile ranking for both indicates that either will outperform the vast majority of CPUs, but the optimal selection depends entirely on the application profile.