AMD EPYC 9124 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9124 and Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX are fundamentally different tools. The EPYC 9124 is a 16-core, 32-thread server processor on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, built for sustained multi-core workloads in a workstation or server chassis. The Core Ultra 7 255HX is a 20-core, 20-thread mobile processor on Intel BGA 2114, built for high-performance laptops where power efficiency is critical. The recorded data shows the EPYC 9124 wins 8 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel part wins 9, but the nature of those wins is what matters.

Pick the EPYC 9124 if you need massive single-core Cinebench performance, large L3 cache, and server-grade memory bandwidth. It dominates in Cinebench R23 single-core by 143.2%, and it leads in integer math by 17%, physics by 25.2%, and random string sorting by 18.5%. Its 64 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus (460.8 GB/s) make it a data-center workhorse. Pick the Core Ultra 7 255HX if you need floating-point throughput, encryption speed, or raw multi-threaded speed in a mobile package. It wins PassMark floating point math by 45.8%, data encryption by 8.7%, and integer-heavy Cinebench R20 multi-core by 8.9%. For a laptop user, the 55 W TDP versus 200 W is the practical difference: the Intel chip fits in a portable chassis.

If you cannot decide based on workload, the average benchmark scores tell the story: the EPYC 9124 sits at 65104, while the Core Ultra 7 255HX sits at 62738, a 3.8% gap in favor of AMD. Both sit in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, so neither is slow. But the EPYC 9124 is a server chip with a launch MSRP of $1083; the Intel part has no launch MSRP recorded. The real question is whether you are building a rack or buying a laptop.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9124 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, on a 5 nm TSMC process. The package contains 26,280 million transistors across a 4x 72 mm² die design. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with 64 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). It has no integrated graphics. This is a server/ workstation part, released on 2022-11-09.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, on a 3 nm TSMC process. The processor has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Each core has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, with 30 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). It includes integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. This is a mobile processor, released on 2025-01-12, and the multiplier is unlocked.

The node difference is significant: 3 nm versus 5 nm, though both are TSMC. The EPYC 9124 has a much larger transistor count due to its 4-die design, but the Intel part has a larger single die area (243 mm² versus 4x 72 mm²). The cache hierarchy is completely different: the EPYC has 64 MB L3 shared, while the Intel has 30 MB L3 shared, but the Intel has 3 MB L2 per core versus 1 MB per core on the EPYC. Memory bandwidth is 4.5x higher on the AMD, but the Intel lacks ECC and has integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest single-core win for the AMD EPYC 9124 is in Cinebench R23 single-core, which scores 5261 versus 2163, a 143.2% margin. This is an exceptional result, reflecting the server chip's high IPC and boost clock efficiency. The EPYC also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 62.1% (530 vs 327) and Cinebench R23 multi-core by 14.3% (37269 vs 32612). In PassMark, the EPYC leads in data compression by 16.4% (599417 vs 515143), integer math by 17% (148785 vs 127126), extended instructions by 5.2% (43380 vs 41247), physics by 25.2% (3662 vs 2926), and random string sorting by 18.5% (74177 vs 62591).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 23.6% (4916 vs 3756) and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 8.9% (17187 vs 15652). It also wins Cinebench R20 single-core by 8.9% (2426 vs 2209). In PassMark, the Intel wins data encryption by 8.7% (39499 vs 36078), find prime numbers by 36% (400 vs 256), floating point math by 45.8% (160624 vs 87057), multithread by 9.1% (48234 vs 43846), and single-thread by 40.4% (4562 vs 2719).

The pattern is consistent: the AMD EPYC wins most integer, compression, and physics workloads, while the Intel wins floating-point, encryption, and single-threaded PassMark tests. The Intel's single-thread lead in PassMark (40.4%) contrasts with the AMD's enormous lead in Cinebench R23 single-core (143.2%). This suggests the workloads differ: Cinebench R23 favors the AMD's architectural efficiency, while PassMark's single-thread test favors the Intel's higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every key specification. The AMD EPYC 9124 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel has more physical cores but no multithreading, so the EPYC has more threads. The base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the AMD and 2.40 GHz for the Intel; boost clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. Thermal design power is 200 W versus 55 W. The AMD uses Socket SP5, the Intel uses BGA 2114. The process node is 5 nm versus 3 nm. Transistor count is 26,280 million versus 17,800 million. Die size is 4x 72 mm² versus 243 mm². L1 cache is 64 KB per core versus 192 KB per core; L2 is 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 64 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is dual-channel (102.4 GB/s) for the Intel, twelve-channel for the AMD (460.8 GB/s). ECC is supported on the AMD, not on the Intel. The PCIe lanes are 128 versus 20. The Intel has integrated graphics, the AMD does not. The AMD has a launch MSRP of $1083; the Intel has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The results are mixed. The AMD EPYC 9124 wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 143.2% (5261 vs 2163) and Cinebench R15 single-core by 62.1% (530 vs 327). The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins PassMark single-thread by 40.4% (4562 vs 2719). So the answer depends on the benchmark: Cinebench favors the EPYC, PassMark favors the Intel.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX faster in multi-core workloads?

A: It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 23.6% (4916 vs 3756) and Cinebench R20 multi-core by 8.9% (17187 vs 15652). However, the AMD EPYC 9124 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 14.3% (37269 vs 32612). The PassMark multithread test goes to the Intel by 9.1% (48234 vs 43846). So the Intel is not universally faster; it depends on the specific multi-core test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 supports twelve-channel DDR5, yielding 460.8 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX supports dual-channel DDR5, yielding 102.4 GB/s. That is a 358.4 GB/s difference and a key reason the EPYC excels in data-compression and integer-heavy workloads.

Q: Does the Intel chip have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD EPYC 9124 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: Which processor has a higher power draw?

A: The AMD EPYC 9124 has a TDP of 200 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a TDP of 55 W. That difference is massive, making the Intel chip much more suitable for battery-powered systems.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance class?

A: Both have a 93rd percentile score against all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 9124 has an average benchmark score of 65104, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 62738. The AMD is 3.8% faster on average. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the AMD EPYC 4464P (0.4% slower) and Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.7% slower). The Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 (0.2% faster) and Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX (0.7% faster).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9124 wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core, Cinebench R23 single-core, Cinebench R15 single-core, PassMark data compression, PassMark extended instructions, PassMark integer math, PassMark physics, and PassMark random string sorting. That is 8 wins. These are the workloads that benefit from a large 64 MB L3 cache, high memory bandwidth, and 32 threads: server-side compression, integer arithmetic, physics simulation, and single-threaded Cinebench rendering.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, Cinebench R20 single-core, PassMark data encryption, PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark floating-point math, PassMark multithread, PassMark single-thread (and the duplicate singlethread test). That is 9 wins. These are workloads that favor high boost clocks (5.2 GHz), higher per-core L2 cache (3 MB per core), and unthreaded performance. The floating-point math win (45.8%) is the largest for the Intel, indicating a strong FPU design.

For use-case guidance: a database server, a rendering node, or a virtualization host should run on the AMD EPYC 9124. The 128 PCIe lanes, twelve-channel memory, and ECC support are server-grade. For a mobile workstation that must handle encryption, floating-point simulation, and Prime-number searching, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX fits a laptop chassis with its 55 W TDP and integrated graphics. The AMD chip cannot be used without a discrete GPU, and its 200 W TDP demands a server cooling solution.

If you are building a desktop or server and need raw compute per core, the EPYC 9124 is the measured winner in Cinebench R23 single-core and multithread. If you are buying a laptop and need a balanced processor with strong floating-point and encryption, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the one. The data shows a clear split: the AMD EPYC is for throughput and bandwidth, the Intel Core Ultra is for high-frequency single-thread and power efficiency.