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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between the AMD EPYC 9184X and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with each processor dominating distinct workload categories. Across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, the Intel chip claims 11 wins while the AMD chip takes 6, but the magnitude of those wins tells a more nuanced story.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus consistently outperforms the AMD EPYC 9184X by a narrow margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 4305 against AMD's 4083, a 5.2% advantage. The pattern repeats across R20 multicore (17941 vs 17016) and R23 multicore (42718 vs 40515), with the same 5.2% delta favoring Intel. Single-core results follow suit: R15 single-core shows 607 vs 576 (5.1% Intel lead), R20 single-core shows 2532 vs 2401 (5.2% lead), and R23 single-core shows 6030 vs 5719 (5.2% lead). These are consistent, if modest, margins across the entire Cinebench family.

The PassMark suite reveals far more dramatic swings. The AMD EPYC 9184X dominates in several specialized workloads. Its biggest win comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 6674 against Intel's 3183, a staggering 109.7% advantage. The AMD chip also leads decisively in integer math (157483 vs 123030, a 28% edge) and random string sorting (79913 vs 67209, an 18.9% edge). Data compression favors AMD as well, with 614873 vs 553155, an 11.2% lead. Smaller AMD wins appear in extended instructions (43562 vs 42880, 1.6%) and find prime numbers (465 vs 452, 2.9%).

Intel fights back hardest in floating-point math, where it scores 159824 against AMD's 95476, a massive 40.3% advantage. The Intel chip also wins single-thread performance by a wide margin: 4698 vs 2822 in PassMark single-thread, a 39.9% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel (41292 vs 37376, a 9.5% edge), and PassMark multithread favors Intel modestly (50146 vs 47665, a 4.9% lead).

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: AMD's average is 68202, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel's average is 66159, in the 93rd percentile. AMD's nearest rival, the EPYC 7352, sits at 68118 (0.1% behind), while Intel's closest competitor, the Core 9 273PQE, scores 66099 (0.1% behind).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD EPYC 9184X is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa-X codename, part of the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process at TSMC with 90,160 million transistors spread across a multi-die design of 8x 72 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a newer 3 nm process at TSMC with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The AMD chip offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel chip provides 18 cores but only 18 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading. Base and boost clocks favor Intel: 4.20 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost versus AMD's 3.55 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost.

Cache structures are radically different. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and only 30 MB shared L3. This 768 MB L3 cache is the defining feature of the AMD chip, enabling its strong performance in data-intensive workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. AMD supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, while Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs as well: AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Power and platform targets separate them further. The AMD EPYC 9184X has a 320 W TDP and uses AMD Socket SP5, targeting the server and workstation market segment. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a 125 W TDP, uses Intel Socket 1851, targets desktop users, and features an unlocked multiplier. Intel's chip has no integrated graphics, and the AMD chip also lacks integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9184X is the clear choice for workloads that depend on massive cache capacity and memory bandwidth. Its 109.7% lead in physics, 28% lead in integer math, and 18.9% lead in random string sorting point to scenarios involving complex calculations, large datasets, and sorting operations. The 11.2% advantage in data compression and 1.6% edge in extended instructions reinforce its strength in throughput-oriented server tasks. The 768 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory subsystem provide the foundation for these wins.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus dominates in floating-point math with a 40.3% lead, making it suitable for scientific computing, simulation, and rendering workloads that rely heavily on FPU performance. Its 39.9% single-thread advantage indicates superior responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The 9.5% lead in data encryption suggests strong cryptography performance, while the consistent 5.2% lead across all Cinebench tests shows balanced multicore and single-core rendering capability. The 4.9% edge in PassMark multithread indicates that despite having fewer threads (18 vs 32), the Intel chip's higher clocks and newer process node compensate effectively.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning the Intel chip has more physical cores but no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the AMD EPYC 9184X scores 6674 against Intel's 3183, a 109.7% advantage. The second-largest gap is in floating-point math, where Intel leads by 40.3%.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth capabilities compare?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. AMD's memory bandwidth is four times higher.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9184X boosts to 4.20 GHz. Intel's boost clock is 1.10 GHz higher.

Q: What are the cache size differences?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 768 MB shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. AMD's L3 cache is 25 times larger.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X has an average benchmark score of 68202, placing it in the 94th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average score of 66159, placing it in the 93rd percentile.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 9184X is the appropriate choice for server and workstation deployments where the 109.7% physics advantage, 28% integer math lead, and 18.9% random string sorting edge translate directly into throughput for data-heavy, cache-sensitive workloads. Its 768 MB L3 cache, twelve-channel memory, and 128 PCIe lanes align with enterprise compute patterns.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is better suited for desktop users who prioritize floating-point math (40.3% lead), single-thread responsiveness (39.9% lead), and encryption performance (9.5% lead). Its higher clocks, unlocked multiplier, and 125 W TDP make it a more flexible platform for general-purpose computing and overclocking scenarios.

The overall win count favors Intel (11 wins vs 6), and the Intel chip claims the Cinebench suite entirely. However, the AMD chip's wins are often larger in magnitude. The average benchmark scores place AMD slightly higher (68202 vs 66159), and AMD sits in the 94th percentile versus Intel's 93rd. The data indicates that the correct choice depends entirely on the workload profile: AMD for server-scale data processing, Intel for desktop compute with floating-point and single-thread emphasis.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9184X | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 16 | 18 |

| Threads | 32 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.55 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Genoa-X | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 90,160 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 768 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $4928 | $184 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |