AMD EPYC 9184X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9184X and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX are polar opposites in design and intent, yet both land in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The data shows a near-split in benchmark wins—8 for the EPYC, 9 for the Ultra 9—but the margins tell a clearer story: the EPYC 9184X dominates in single-threaded and cache-sensitive workloads, while the Ultra 9 275HX excels in floating-point and multi-threaded throughput. The EPYC’s 768 MB of L3 cache is the decisive factor in its 159.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, whereas the Ultra 9’s 24 cores and higher boost clock drive its 50.1% advantage in floating-point math. These are not interchangeable parts; they serve different physical and economic realities, from a 320 W server socket to a 55 W mobile package.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX has 24 cores, while the AMD EPYC 9184X has 16 cores. However, the EPYC supports 32 threads via SMT, whereas the Ultra 9 has 24 threads with no hyperthreading.

Q: How does the EPYC 9184X achieve such a large cache advantage?

A: The EPYC 9184X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 36 MB on the Ultra 9 275HX. This 3D V-Cache design is the primary reason the EPYC wins 7 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks it claims, including a 159.5% margin in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Which chip is faster in multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core by 27.3% and 14.5%, respectively. The AMD EPYC 9184X fights back with a 13.8% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core, showing that the lead depends heavily on the specific test version.

Q: What are the memory channel differences?

A: The EPYC 9184X uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Ultra 9 275HX is dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC, a four-fold difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC 9184X has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server/workstation part.

Q: How do their single-thread PassMark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 4,713 in PassMark single-thread, which is 40.1% higher than the EPYC’s 2,822. This aligns with the Ultra 9’s 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 4.20 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The foundational split is node and process. The AMD EPYC 9184X uses TSMC’s 5 nm process with a massive 90,160 million transistors spread across an 8x 72 mm² die configuration. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX uses TSMC’s 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. The EPYC’s Zen 4 architecture is built for server density, while the Ultra 9’s Arrow Lake-HX design targets mobile performance per watt.

Cache hierarchy is the largest architectural divergence. The EPYC 9184X allocates 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, but its defining feature is 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ultra 9 275HX has 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, with only 36 MB of shared L3. This 21x difference in L3 capacity explains why the EPYC dominates in Cinebench R23 single-core (5,719 vs 2,204) and PassMark physics (6,674 vs 3,338), where working sets fit in cache.

Memory and I/O further separate them. The EPYC 9184X supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC, plus 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 9 275HX has dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s, no ECC, and only 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ultra 9 compensates with an unlocked multiplier and integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics, neither of which the EPYC offers. The EPYC’s 320 W TDP versus the Ultra 9’s 55 W TDP reflects their respective sockets: AMD Socket SP5 versus Intel BGA 2114.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9184X is the winner in cache-bound and single-threaded workloads. Its 159.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 72.5% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core show that the 768 MB L3 cache eliminates memory latency penalties. It also wins PassMark physics by 99.9%, random string sorting by 7.5%, and integer math by 1.5%. These are workloads where data fits in the massive L3, making the EPYC ideal for database queries, scientific simulation, and any server task with large working sets.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX takes the multi-threaded and floating-point crown. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 27.3% and R20 multi-core by 14.5%, plus PassMark multi-thread by 14.5%. Its most decisive victory is floating-point math, where it nearly doubles the EPYC’s score (191,186 vs 95,476, a 50.1% margin). The Ultra 9 also wins data encryption by 20.7% and extended instructions by 7.3%. This makes it a better fit for video encoding, financial modeling, and AI inference that relies on FP32/FP64 throughput. The Ultra 9’s higher boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.20 GHz) and 24 cores drive these wins.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9184X | Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX |

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

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.55 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

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

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 243 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 768 MB | 36 MB |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | 128 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2023-06-12 | 2025-01-12 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win belongs to the AMD EPYC 9184X in Cinebench R23 single-core, where its 5,719 score crushes the Ultra 9’s 2,204 by 159.5%. This is a direct result of the 768 MB L3 cache, which allows the entire benchmark loop to reside on-die. Similarly, Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 72.5% EPYC advantage (576 vs 334). The EPYC also wins PassMark physics by 99.9% (6,674 vs 3,338), reinforcing that compute-bound single-threaded tasks favor the server chip.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX counters with a 50.1% win in PassMark floating-point math (191,186 vs 95,476) and a 40.1% win in PassMark single-thread (4,713 vs 2,822). The Ultra 9’s Cinebench R15 multi-core win is 27.3% (5,619.5 vs 4,083), and its R20 multi-core win is 14.5% (19,899 vs 17,016). The Ultra 9 also leads in data encryption by 20.7% (47,112 vs 37,376) and extended instructions by 7.3% (47,016 vs 43,562).

The close calls reveal nuance. The EPYC wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 13.8% (40,515 vs 35,589), reversing the R15 and R20 results. The EPYC edges out the Ultra 9 in data compression by 1.1% (614,873 vs 608,381), integer math by 1.5% (157,483 vs 155,218), and prime number finding by 3.8% (465 vs 448). Random string sorting goes to the EPYC by 7.5% (79,913 vs 74,320). These narrow margins suggest that in many mixed workloads, the two chips are statistically near-identical, despite their architectural chasm.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9184X is the choice for server and workstation environments where cache capacity and memory bandwidth are paramount. Its 768 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 deliver a 159.5% single-core Cinebench R23 advantage and a 99.9% physics win, making it superior for large in-memory databases, scientific computing, and virtualization. The 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support heavy I/O and multi-socket configurations, and ECC memory is mandatory for data integrity. The launch MSRP is $4928, reflecting its enterprise positioning.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is the pick for mobile workstations and high-performance laptops where power efficiency and floating-point throughput matter. Its 55 W TDP versus 320 W is a 5.8x power advantage, and its 50.1% floating-point math win shows strength in rendering and numerical simulation. The unlocked multiplier and integrated Arc Xe-LPG graphics add flexibility for overclocking and light GPU tasks, while the 5.40 GHz boost clock drives a 40.1% PassMark single-thread lead. The Ultra 9’s 24 cores also win Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core by 27.3% and 14.5%, respectively, making it a strong all-rounder for mobile content creation.

The data does not declare a universal winner. The EPYC 9184X wins 8 benchmarks, the Ultra 9 wins 9, and both sit at the 94th percentile. The EPYC’s wins are concentrated in cache-sensitive and integer-heavy tasks, while the Ultra 9’s wins span floating-point, encryption, and multi-core throughput. A buyer choosing between them should decide based on physical platform: a server rack with SP5 infrastructure versus a BGA 2114 mobile chassis. The EPYC 9184X rewards those who need maximum cache and memory bandwidth; the Ultra 9 275HX rewards those who need portable multi-threaded performance with a high clock ceiling.