AMD EPYC 9354P vs Intel Core Ultra 5 115U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in the direct comparison between the AMD EPYC 9354P and the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U. Across all six shared benchmark tests, the EPYC 9354P wins outright, with the Intel part failing to secure a single victory. The margins are substantial, reflecting the fundamental difference in positioning between a server-class processor and a mobile-focused chip.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9354P scores 6434 against 1094 for the Core Ultra 5 115U, a delta of 488.1%. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 908 versus 154, a 489.6% advantage. These are not incremental gaps; they represent a different performance tier entirely.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The multicore test shows 26812 for the AMD part versus 4559 for the Intel part, again a 488.1% delta. Single-core R20 results are 3785 versus 643, a 488.6% margin. The consistency of these percentages across all Cinebench versions is notable. It suggests that the relative performance gap is stable regardless of the workload generation, which points to a fundamental architectural superiority rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three, confirms the trend. The EPYC 9354P posts 63840 multicore against 10855 for the Core Ultra 5 115U, a 488.1% delta. Single-core R23 is 9012 versus 1532, a 488.3% margin. The AMD processor is roughly five times faster in every Cinebench metric recorded. That is not a close contest by any measure.

The average benchmark score data places these two chips in different leagues as well. The EPYC 9354P has an average benchmark score of 15826 across its recorded tests, while the Core Ultra 5 115U averages 16753 across its broader test suite. Interestingly, the Intel part's average is actually higher, but this is because the two chips were tested on different benchmark sets. The EPYC 9354P's recorded tests are all Cinebench and Geekbench workloads, while the Core Ultra 5 115U includes PassMark tests that boost its average. The head-to-head tests, however, are unambiguous: the AMD part dominates every shared workload.

The percentile rankings are close, with the EPYC 9354P at the 69th percentile of all CPUs and the Core Ultra 5 115U at the 70th. This proximity is misleading given the head-to-head results. The percentile reflects performance across the entire CPU landscape, where both parts are mid-pack in their respective categories. But in direct comparison, the server chip is overwhelmingly faster.

Nearest rival data for the EPYC 9354P shows it sits near the AMD EPYC 75F3, which has an average score of 15859 and a delta of -0.2%, meaning the 9354P is essentially at parity with that part. It is also within 0.4% of the AMD EPYC 9254 and 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-11400H. For the Core Ultra 5 115U, the nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1235U at -0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 3 7335U at -0.4%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 8440U at +0.5%. These comparisons show that in its own class, the Core Ultra 5 115U is competitive, but that class is nowhere near the EPYC 9354P's performance envelope.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is vast, starting with the core counts. The AMD EPYC 9354P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has 8 cores and 10 threads. That is a 4x core advantage for the AMD part and a 6.4x thread advantage. The thread count gap is larger than the core gap because the EPYC 9354P supports SMT on every core, whereas the Core Ultra 5 115U only has two extra threads across its eight cores, indicating a hybrid architecture with some efficiency cores that do not support hyperthreading.

The process nodes differ significantly. The EPYC 9354P is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, while the Core Ultra 5 115U uses a 7 nm process from Intel. The AMD part also has a massive transistor count of 52,560 million spread across eight chiplets, each 72 mm² in die size. The Intel part has no recorded transistor or die size data, which is consistent with its monolithic or tile-based design that is not disclosed in the same manner.

Cache hierarchies are completely different in scale. The EPYC 9354P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 115U has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and only 10 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is particularly stark: 256 MB versus 10 MB is a 25.6x gap. This enormous L3 cache on the EPYC part is designed to feed 32 cores in server workloads, while the mobile chip's modest cache reflects its power and thermal constraints.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC 9354P uses DDR5 over a twelve-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Core Ultra 5 115U also supports DDR5, but over a dual-channel bus with only 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 5.1x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth. The EPYC 9354P also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra 5 115U does not. ECC is a critical feature for server and workstation reliability, and its absence on the Intel part confirms its mobile, consumer-focused design.

PCIe connectivity diverges sharply. The EPYC 9354P offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Core Ultra 5 115U provides PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes. The lane count difference is over 10x, and the generation difference means the AMD part also has double the per-lane bandwidth. For workloads involving GPUs, NVMe storage, or networking, the EPYC 9354P can support far more devices at higher speeds.

The power envelope is perhaps the most telling architectural difference. The EPYC 9354P has a TDP of 280 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 115U has a TDP of 15 watts. That is an 18.7x difference in thermal design power. The AMD part is designed to be plugged into a server motherboard with robust cooling, while the Intel part is designed for thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency is paramount. The socket types reflect this: the EPYC 9354P uses AMD Socket SP5, a server platform, while the Core Ultra 5 115U uses Intel BGA 2049, a soldered mobile package.

The integrated graphics situation also differs. The EPYC 9354P has no integrated graphics, which is standard for server processors that assume a discrete GPU or a BMC for display output. The Core Ultra 5 115U includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU integrated graphics, making it a complete system-on-chip for mobile devices. This is a meaningful feature for laptops that do not have discrete GPUs.

Release dates are roughly a year apart. The EPYC 9354P launched on 2022-11-09, while the Core Ultra 5 115U launched on 2023-12-13. Both are listed as Active in production status. The EPYC 9354P has a launch MSRP of $2730, while the Core Ultra 5 115U has no recorded launch MSRP, consistent with mobile parts that are typically sold in bulk to laptop OEMs rather than as standalone retail products.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9354P wins in every recorded benchmark category where both chips were tested. Its Cinebench scores across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore, are all roughly 488% higher than the Core Ultra 5 115U. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on sustained CPU performance, particularly in multi-threaded scenarios. The 64 threads and 256 MB of L3 cache are built for database workloads, virtualization, scientific computing, and heavy compilation tasks. The twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth further cements its position for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications like in-memory analytics or high-performance computing.

The Core Ultra 5 115U does not win any of the head-to-head benchmarks, but it has strengths that are not captured in those six tests. Its integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics make it a complete solution for mobile devices that need basic display output and light GPU acceleration. The 15 W TDP means it can operate in fanless or ultra-low-power designs where the EPYC 9354P would be physically impossible to cool. The dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth are modest but appropriate for a laptop. Its PassMark results, which are not part of the head-to-head suite, show reasonable single-thread performance with a PassMark single-thread score of 3057, and its data compression score of 141945 and integer math score of 41043 indicate it can handle everyday productivity tasks competently.

For a server or workstation buyer, the EPYC 9354P is the only rational choice between these two. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, massive cache, and high memory bandwidth are non-negotiable requirements for serious compute workloads. The Core Ultra 5 115U would struggle to even boot modern server software effectively, and its 10 threads would be a bottleneck for any multi-tenant workload.

For a laptop buyer, the Core Ultra 5 115U is the only feasible option. The EPYC 9354P is a 280 W socketed part that requires a server board and active cooling. The Core Ultra 5 115U's 15 W TDP and BGA 2049 socket make it suitable for thin notebooks. Its integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in many use cases, and its PassMark multithread score of 13024 shows it can handle moderate parallel workloads like video conferencing, office suites, and light content creation.

The use cases do not overlap. The EPYC 9354P is for rack-mounted servers, data centers, and high-end workstations. The Core Ultra 5 115U is for portable computing where battery life and thermals matter more than raw throughput. Each wins in its own domain, even though the benchmark data gives every head-to-head win to the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P scores 63840 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U scores 10855. The AMD part is 488.1% faster in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U support ECC memory?

A: No. The recorded data lists ECC memory support as false for the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U. The AMD EPYC 9354P does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P has a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s. The AMD part offers 5.1x the memory bandwidth.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor provide?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U provides PCIe Gen 4 with 12 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has integrated Arc Xe-LPG 48EU graphics. The AMD EPYC 9354P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the TDP values for these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9354P has a TDP of 280 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has a TDP of 15 watts.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD EPYC 9354P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 115U has 8 cores and 10 threads. Base clock speeds are 3.25 GHz for the AMD part and 1500.00 MHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 3.80 GHz and 4.20 GHz respectively, meaning the Intel part has a higher boost clock despite its much lower base clock.

The process node is 5 nm for the EPYC 9354P (TSMC) and 7 nm for the Core Ultra 5 115U (Intel). The AMD part has 52,560 million transistors across 8 chiplets, each 72 mm². The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 9354P has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Core Ultra 5 115U has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the EPYC 9354P uses a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core Ultra 5 115U uses a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD part. PCIe capability is Gen 5 with 128 lanes on the EPYC 9354P versus Gen 4 with 12 lanes on the Core Ultra 5 115U.

The EPYC 9354P has no integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra 5 115U includes Arc Xe-LPG 48EU. The AMD part uses AMD Socket SP5 and has a TDP of 280 watts, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2049 and has a TDP of 15 watts. The EPYC 9354P is in the Server/Workstation market segment, while the Core Ultra 5 115U is in the Mobile segment. The AMD part launched on 2022-11-09 with a launch MSRP of $2730, while the Intel part launched on 2023-12-13 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both parts are locked and do not have an unlocked multiplier.