AMD EPYC 9454P vs Intel Core Ultra 7 258V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a starkly lopsided contest. Across the eight shared benchmark tests, the AMD EPYC 9454P claims seven decisive victories, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V manages only a single narrow win. The most dramatic margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC scores 81,492 against the Core Ultra's 10,301 — a delta of -87.4% from Intel's perspective. That is not a marginal gap; it is a chasm that reflects fundamentally different design goals.

The multi-core sweep is comprehensive. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC posts 8,214 versus 1,596.5, a -80.6% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 34,226 for AMD against 6,739 for Intel, again -80.3%. The Geekbench multi-core test narrows the gap somewhat, with the EPYC at 19,941 and the Core Ultra at 9,325, a -53.2% delta — still a massive advantage, but less extreme than the Cinebench results. This suggests the two processors respond differently to workload characteristics, with Cinebench's rendering engine being particularly favorable to the EPYC's massive thread count.

Single-core results tell a more nuanced story, though the EPYC still dominates in most tests. Cinebench R15 single-core: EPYC 1,159, Core Ultra 285 — a -75.4% delta. R20 single-core: EPYC 4,831, Core Ultra 951 — -80.3%. R23 single-core: EPYC 11,504, Core Ultra 1,872 — -83.7%. These are surprising margins for a single-core comparison, given that the Core Ultra has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.80 GHz). The data implies that raw clock speed is not the determining factor here; architectural efficiency and IPC differences dominate.

The sole Intel victory comes in Geekbench single-core, where the Core Ultra scores 2,100 against the EPYC's 2,011 — a modest 4.4% advantage. This is the only benchmark where Intel's newer process node and design appear to translate into a measurable performance lead. It is a thin reed of hope in an otherwise one-sided dataset, but it does indicate that Intel's architecture has genuine single-threaded strength in certain workloads.

The average benchmark scores place the two almost identically: 20,454 for Intel versus 20,422 for AMD, a 0.2% delta favoring Intel. This near-parity in overall average, despite the EPYC winning seven of eight head-to-head tests, is a statistical curiosity. It implies that Intel's PassMark results — which are not in the head-to-head comparison — must be strong enough to offset the Cinebench and Geekbench losses. The EPYC's nearest rival list includes the Core Ultra at -0.2% delta, confirming that the aggregate picture is balanced even as the individual tests are not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is built on Lunar Lake, a mobile-focused design manufactured on TSMC's 3 nm process. The AMD EPYC 9454P uses Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, on TSMC's 5 nm node. This process difference is significant: the Core Ultra's 3 nm node is a newer, denser process, which likely contributes to its single-core Geekbench win despite a lower transistor budget per functional unit.

Core counts could not be more different. The Core Ultra has 8 cores and 8 threads — no hyperthreading. The EPYC has 48 cores and 96 threads, a 6x core advantage and a 12x thread advantage. This explains the multi-core dominance. The EPYC's 48 cores, each with 96 threads available, overwhelm Intel's modest 8-thread configuration in heavily parallel workloads like Cinebench rendering.

Cache hierarchy reveals another layer of divergence. The Core Ultra allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. The EPYC provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. Total L3 is 12 MB for Intel versus 256 MB for AMD — a 21x difference. This enormous L3 cache on the EPYC is typical of server processors designed to hold large working sets in high-speed memory, reducing the need to access system RAM.

Memory architecture is equally divergent. The Core Ultra supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, delivering 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s — 3.4x more bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Core Ultra does not. This combination of ECC and massive bandwidth positions the EPYC for data integrity and throughput in server environments.

Process node, transistor count, and die size further separate the two. The EPYC's datasheet lists 52,560 million transistors spread across 8x 72 mm² dies. The Core Ultra has no listed transistor count or die size in the data. The EPYC's multi-die design is typical of server chips, enabling high core counts through chiplet architecture. The Core Ultra's monolithic or minimal-chiplet approach is more suited to mobile power envelopes.

PCIe lanes also differ dramatically: the Core Ultra offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. This 32x difference in PCIe lanes means the EPYC can connect to far more peripherals, GPUs, and NVMe drives directly, a critical capability for server workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9454P is the clear winner in any workload that scales with core count or thread count. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show the EPYC leading by 80% or more. These tests are heavily parallelized rendering workloads, and the EPYC's 48 cores/96 threads simply overwhelm the Core Ultra's 8 cores/8 threads. For video rendering, 3D animation, scientific computing, or any batch processing task that can utilize many threads, the EPYC is the obvious choice based on the data.

The EPYC also wins in single-core performance across all three Cinebench versions, despite having a lower boost clock. This suggests that for single-threaded Cinebench workloads, Zen 4's IPC advantage over Lunar Lake is substantial — or that the Core Ultra's power constraints limit its sustained single-core boost. The EPYC's single-core scores are 3-4x higher than the Core Ultra's, which is surprising given the clock speed disadvantage.

The Core Ultra 7 258V wins only in Geekbench single-core, with a 4.4% margin. This indicates that in Geekbench's particular mix of integer and floating-point operations, Intel's architecture has an edge. For users running Geekbench-style single-threaded applications — which might include certain legacy software, some database queries, or lightly threaded productivity tools — the Core Ultra offers a small but real advantage.

The average benchmark scores, which are nearly identical (20,454 vs 20,422), suggest that the two processors have different performance profiles that roughly balance out in aggregate. Intel's PassMark scores — including data compression at 176,686, floating point math at 57,372, and integer math at 42,889 — are not part of the head-to-head table but contribute to the average. These scores indicate the Core Ultra is strong in specific math-heavy and data-processing tasks, even if it loses in Cinebench rendering.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Core Ultra has 8 cores and 8 threads; the EPYC has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks differ: 2.20 GHz for Intel versus 2.75 GHz for AMD. Boost clocks flip the relationship: 4.80 GHz for Intel versus 3.80 GHz for AMD. TDP is the most extreme difference: 17 watts for the Core Ultra versus 290 watts for the EPYC — a 17x difference in power envelope.

Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 2833 for the Core Ultra, AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC. The Core Ultra is soldered (BGA), while the EPYC uses a socketed design. Process nodes differ (3 nm Intel vs 5 nm AMD), though both use TSMC as the foundry. The EPYC lists 52,560 million transistors and 8x 72 mm² dies; the Core Ultra lists neither.

Cache configurations differ per core and in total. L1 per core: 192 KB (Intel) vs 64 KB (AMD). L2 per core: 2.5 MB (Intel) vs 1 MB (AMD). L3 shared: 12 MB (Intel) vs 256 MB (AMD). Memory support: LPDDR5X (Intel) vs DDR5 (AMD). Memory bus: dual-channel (Intel) vs twelve-channel (AMD). Memory bandwidth: 136.5 GB/s vs 460.8 GB/s. ECC memory: not supported (Intel) vs supported (AMD).

PCIe: Gen 5 with 4 lanes (Intel) vs Gen 5 with 128 lanes (AMD). Integrated graphics: Arc 140V (Intel) vs none (AMD). Market segment: Mobile (Intel) vs Server/Workstation (AMD). Release dates: 2024-09-23 (Intel) vs 2022-11-09 (AMD). The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $4598; the Core Ultra has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454P wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests by wide margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 81,492 versus the Core Ultra's 10,301, a delta of -87.4%. The EPYC also leads in Geekbench multi-core with 19,941 versus 9,325.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 258V win any benchmark?

A: Yes. The Core Ultra wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 2,100 versus the EPYC's 2,011, a 4.4% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test the Core Ultra wins out of eight.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The Core Ultra has an average benchmark score of 20,454, while the EPYC has 20,422. The delta is 0.2% favoring Intel, and both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Core Ultra has 8 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC has 48 cores and 96 threads. This is a 6x core advantage and 12x thread advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC provides 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus, while the Core Ultra provides 136.5 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Core Ultra does not.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a 21x difference in total L3 capacity.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and power constraints. The AMD EPYC 9454P is the dominant choice for multi-threaded, high-throughput server and workstation workloads. Its 48 cores and 96 threads deliver overwhelming advantages in Cinebench rendering tests, with deltas ranging from -80.3% to -87.4% against the Core Ultra. The EPYC's 256 MB of L3 cache, 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes further cement its position for data-heavy, I/O-intensive server environments. The 290-watt TDP is a non-issue for a server socket designed for sustained high load.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 258V is the appropriate choice for mobile or power-constrained systems. Its 17-watt TDP is 17x lower than the EPYC's, making it feasible for laptops and compact devices where the EPYC would be physically impossible to power or cool. The Core Ultra's single Geekbench single-core win, with a 4.4% margin, shows it has genuine single-threaded strength. Its integrated Arc 140V graphics provide display output capability that the EPYC lacks entirely, as the EPYC has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

The near-identical average benchmark scores — 20,454 vs 20,422 — suggest that for a hypothetical workload evenly balanced across all tested metrics, the two would perform almost the same. That is a misleading statistic, however. The EPYC wins seven of eight head-to-head tests, and its losses are narrow while its wins are enormous. The Core Ultra's average is buoyed by PassMark results not included in the head-to-head table. For buyers deciding between these two, the question is not which is faster — the EPYC is clearly faster in most measured metrics — but which fits the physical and power constraints of the intended system. Server rack: EPYC. Laptop: Core Ultra. The data does not support any other conclusion.