AMD EPYC 9184X vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9184X and Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum, yet benchmark data reveals a surprisingly competitive head-to-head contest. The EPYC 9184X, a 16-core Zen 4 server part with 3D V-Cache, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, an 18-core Arrow Lake Refresh desktop chip, split their 17 benchmark comparisons nearly evenly, with the Intel winning 10 and the AMD winning 7. Their average benchmark scores are close—68,202 for the AMD versus 66,855 for the Intel—placing both in the 93rd and 94th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively. This analysis dissects where each processor dominates, the architectural reasons behind those splits, and which workloads favor which chip.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9184X establishes its dominance in sustained multi-threaded rendering and integer-heavy server workloads. Its most decisive victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5,719 against the Intel's 2,261, a staggering 152.9% advantage. The AMD also leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 40,515 versus 30,867, a 31.3% margin, and in PassMark physics (6,674 vs 3,494, a 91% lead) and integer math (157,483 vs 125,091, +25.9%). Data compression and random string sorting also favor the AMD, with scores of 614,873 and 79,913 respectively, outpacing the Intel by 8.1% and 15.7%.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, conversely, excels in floating-point throughput and single-threaded desktop tasks. Its largest win is in PassMark floating-point math, scoring 162,692 against the AMD's 95,476—a 41.3% advantage. The Intel also takes PassMark single-thread with 4,757 versus 2,822, a 40.7% lead, and wins Cinebench R20 multi-core (18,442 vs 17,016, +7.7%) and R15 multi-core (4,640 vs 4,083, +12%). Data encryption also goes to the Intel (42,144 vs 37,376, +11.3%), along with smaller wins in extended instructions (+2.3%), find prime numbers (+4.3%), and PassMark multithread (51,596 vs 47,665, +7.6%).

The split is clear: the AMD wins on integer-heavy, cache-sensitive, and physics-based workloads, while the Intel wins on floating-point math, encryption, and raw single-threaded desktop responsiveness. The Cinebench R23 single-core result is the outlier—the AMD's 3D V-Cache architecture appears to give it an exceptional advantage in that specific rendering test, despite losing single-threaded PassMark by a wide margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9184X uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, codenamed Genoa-X, and is part of the EPYC 9004 series. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.55 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its defining feature is the massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache, enabled by 3D V-Cache technology, alongside 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The chip is built from 8 chiplets, each 72 mm², totaling 90,160 million transistors. It runs on AMD Socket SP5 with a 320 W TDP and supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on a 3 nm TSMC process, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It has 18 cores and 18 threads (no hyperthreading), with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Its cache configuration is far more modest: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The single die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors. It uses Intel Socket 1851, has a 125 W TDP, dual-channel DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, and 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. It also includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs, whereas the AMD has no integrated graphics.

The architectural gulf is stark: the AMD is a server-grade, multi-die, cache-monster design with enormous memory bandwidth, while the Intel is a desktop part with a smaller, faster-clocked monolithic die and integrated graphics. The Intel's 5.30 GHz boost clock is 1.10 GHz higher than the AMD's 4.20 GHz, yet the AMD's 768 MB L3 cache is 25.6 times larger than the Intel's 30 MB. The AMD's TDP of 320 W is more than double the Intel's 125 W, reflecting its server-oriented power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, significantly higher than the AMD EPYC 9184X's 4.20 GHz. This helps explain the Intel's 40.7% lead in PassMark single-thread performance.

Q: How much larger is the AMD's L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 30 MB. The AMD's cache is therefore 25.6 times larger, which drives its massive wins in Cinebench R23 single-core (152.9% ahead) and physics (91% ahead).

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9184X and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus support ECC memory. However, the AMD uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), far exceeding the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's 20 lanes. This makes the AMD better suited for multi-GPU or high-density storage server configurations.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Intel has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD's simultaneous multithreading gives it more threads despite fewer cores, but the Intel's higher clocks help it win PassMark multithread by 7.6%.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EUs. The AMD EPYC 9184X has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server processors.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD EPYC 9184X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks are 3.55 GHz for the AMD and 4.20 GHz for the Intel; boost clocks are 4.20 GHz and 5.30 GHz, respectively. The AMD's TDP is 320 W versus the Intel's 125 W. The AMD uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 1851. Process nodes differ: 5 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are 90,160 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel; die sizes are 8x 72 mm² (AMD) versus 243 mm² (Intel).

Cache configurations diverge sharply: L1 cache is 64 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel; L2 is 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core; L3 is 768 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the AMD uses twelve-channel with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses dual-channel with 115.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 128 Gen 5 for AMD versus 20 Gen 5 for Intel. The AMD has no integrated graphics; the Intel has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD's multiplier is locked, while the Intel's is unlocked. The Intel has a part number (SA4UZ), and the AMD has a launch MSRP of $4928.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the AMD EPYC 9184X is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5,719 against the Intel's 2,261, a 152.9% delta. This is the single largest margin in the entire comparison. The AMD also dominates Cinebench R23 multi-core (40,515 vs 30,867, +31.3%) and PassMark physics (6,674 vs 3,494, +91%). In integer math, the AMD leads 157,483 to 125,091, a 25.9% advantage. Data compression (614,873 vs 568,721, +8.1%) and random string sorting (79,913 vs 69,090, +15.7%) also go to the AMD.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus's largest win is in PassMark floating-point math, scoring 162,692 against the AMD's 95,476, a 41.3% delta. It also wins PassMark single-thread by 40.7% (4,757 vs 2,822) and PassMark multithread by 7.6% (51,596 vs 47,665). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel leads 4,640 to 4,083 (+12%), and in R20 multi-core it leads 18,442 to 17,016 (+7.7%). Data encryption goes to the Intel (42,144 vs 37,376, +11.3%), along with extended instructions (44,565 vs 43,562, +2.3%) and find prime numbers (486 vs 465, +4.3%).

The pattern is consistent: the AMD wins when the workload benefits from massive cache and integer throughput, while the Intel wins when the workload relies on floating-point execution and higher clock speeds. The Cinebench R23 single-core result is anomalous—the AMD wins by 152.9% despite losing PassMark single-thread by 40.7%, suggesting the AMD's 3D V-Cache provides a specific advantage in that rendering benchmark. The Intel's wins in multi-core Cinebench R15 and R20 are notable because the AMD has 32 threads versus the Intel's 18, yet the Intel's higher clocks (5.30 GHz boost) overcome the thread deficit in those tests.

The Verdict

The data points to distinct use cases for each processor. The AMD EPYC 9184X is the choice for workloads where L3 cache capacity and integer throughput are paramount—physics simulations, data compression, and integer math. Its 768 MB L3 cache and 32 threads make it a server/workstation part aimed at database, virtualization, and scientific computing. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 41.3% lead in floating-point math, is better suited for desktop productivity, encryption tasks, and floating-point-heavy applications. Its integrated graphics and unlocked multiplier also make it a more flexible desktop part.

The AMD wins 7 benchmarks, the Intel wins 10, but the AMD's victories are often by larger margins. The AMD's 152.9% win in Cinebench R23 single-core and 91% win in physics are far more decisive than the Intel's 41.3% win in floating-point math or 40.7% in single-thread. The AMD also has a higher percentile ranking (94th vs 93rd) and a higher average benchmark score (68,202 vs 66,855). However, the Intel's TDP is dramatically lower (125 W vs 320 W), and it offers integrated graphics, which the AMD does not. The AMD's launch MSRP is $4928, reflecting its server positioning, while the Intel's is $199.

For server and workstation buyers needing maximum cache and integer performance, the AMD EPYC 9184X is the data-backed choice, despite its higher power draw and lack of integrated graphics. For desktop users prioritizing floating-point throughput, single-threaded responsiveness, and lower power consumption, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the better fit. The AMD's 31.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core suggests it is the stronger renderer for long multi-threaded workloads, while the Intel's 7.6% win in PassMark multithread indicates it handles shorter, clock-sensitive multi-threaded tasks better. Choose based on workload: cache and integer for AMD, clock speed and floating-point for Intel.