AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX Comparison

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX present a fascinating contrast in modern processor design, pitting a dense server-focused silicon against a high-frequency mobile flagship. Both CPUs achieve the 97th percentile in benchmark databases, but the data reveals they achieve this status through fundamentally different performance profiles. The head-to-head results show Intel winning 13 of 17 tests, yet the AMD chip secures decisive victories in specific workloads that hint at its architectural priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is Intel’s consistent dominance across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 48,008 versus the EPYC’s 41,542, a 13.5% advantage. This gap repeats almost identically across all Cinebench versions: R15 multi-core shows 4,839 for Intel versus 4,187 for AMD (-13.5%), R20 multi-core shows 20,163 versus 17,447 (-13.5%), and even single-core tests follow the same script. The R23 single-core result is particularly telling — Intel’s 6,777 beats AMD’s 5,864 by the same 13.5%. This uniformity suggests Intel’s higher boost clock (5.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) provides a straightforward, scalable advantage in rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. Intel wins the headline multi-thread test with 56,415 against 48,873 (-13.4%), but AMD strikes back hard in specific areas. The EPYC Embedded 8224P crushes Intel in integer math, scoring 193,256 versus 156,314 — a 23.6% margin. This is AMD’s largest win in any benchmark. The server chip also leads in data compression (681,754 versus 618,338, +10.3%), physics (4,110 versus 3,377, +21.7%), and random string sorting (85,505 versus 75,710, +12.9%). These are classic server-type workloads that benefit from the EPYC’s 48 threads versus Intel’s 24.

Intel’s wins in the remaining PassMark tests are equally decisive. Floating point math shows Intel at 193,324 against AMD’s 120,066 — a 37.9% blowout. Prime number finding favors Intel 457 to 286 (-37.4%), data encryption goes to Intel 48,016 versus 43,619 (-9.2%), and extended instructions edge Intel’s way 47,687 to 46,091 (-3.3%). The single-thread test is the most lopsided of all: Intel scores 4,727 versus AMD’s 2,357, a 50.1% gap. That result alone explains why any latency-sensitive or lightly-threaded workload will strongly prefer the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads, and does that translate to more benchmark wins?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 48 threads versus Intel’s 24, yet Intel still wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. AMD’s thread advantage only helps in four specific workloads: integer math, data compression, physics, and random string sorting.

Q: How significant is Intel’s single-thread performance advantage?

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows Intel at 4,727 versus AMD’s 2,357, a 50.1% difference. This is the largest margin in any benchmark between the two, and it aligns with Intel’s consistent 13.5% lead across all Cinebench single-core tests.

Q: Does the EPYC’s larger L3 cache help in any measurable way?

A: AMD’s 64 MB shared L3 cache (versus Intel’s 36 MB) likely contributes to its 10.3% lead in data compression and 12.9% lead in random string sorting, but it does not prevent Intel from winning most other memory-sensitive tests.

Q: What explains AMD’s 23.6% victory in integer math?

A: The EPYC’s 48 threads provide parallel execution capacity that Intel’s 24 threads cannot match in this workload. The result (193,256 versus 156,314) shows that integer-heavy server tasks scale well with thread count.

Q: Is Intel’s higher boost clock (5.40 GHz) the main reason for its single-thread wins?

A: The data supports this interpretation, as Intel’s 50.1% single-thread lead in PassMark correlates with its 2.40 GHz clock advantage over AMD’s 3.00 GHz boost. However, architectural differences also play a role in the consistent Cinebench margins.

Q: How close are these processors overall?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: AMD at 76,492 and Intel at 76,024, a 0.6% difference. This places them as direct rivals in the database, with AMD’s EPYC 4545P (76,433) and Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (76,513) also clustered within 0.1% to 0.6%.

Architecture Differences

The two chips diverge sharply at the architectural level. AMD’s EPYC Embedded 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture under the codename Siena, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.55 GHz and boost of 3.00 GHz. The chip is constructed from two 73 mm² dies, totaling 17,750 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy starts with 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a substantial 64 MB shared L3.

Intel’s Core Ultra 9 275HX employs the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-HX codename), fabricated on a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process. It also has 24 cores but only 24 threads — no hyperthreading. The base clock is 2.70 GHz with a much higher 5.40 GHz boost. The die is a single 243 mm² piece containing 17,800 million transistors. Intel’s cache is configured differently: 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3.

Memory support further separates them. AMD uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel runs dual-channel DDR5 at 102.4 GB/s. The EPYC supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity also differs drastically: AMD offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with just 20 lanes. Intel includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, whereas AMD has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible — AMD on Socket SP6, Intel on BGA 2114 — and Intel’s multiplier is unlocked while AMD’s is not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P | Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX |

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

| Threads | 48 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 160 W | 55 W |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 2x 73 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 | 64 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | 96 (Gen 5) | 20 (Gen 5) |

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

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel BGA 2114 |

| Unlocked Multiplier | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2025-01-12 |

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two processors optimized for different realities. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins overall in benchmark count (13 versus 4) and dominates the Cinebench suite with a uniform 13.5% margin across every test. Its single-thread performance is nothing short of dominant — the 50.1% lead in PassMark single-thread is the largest gap recorded in this comparison. For anyone running rendering, floating-point math, encryption, or single-threaded applications, Intel’s 5.40 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process deliver consistently superior results.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, however, carves out a clear niche. Its 48 threads and 64 MB L3 cache produce decisive wins in integer math (+23.6%), physics (+21.7%), random string sorting (+12.9%), and data compression (+10.3%). These are workloads that reward parallel throughput and large caches. The EPYC also offers six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes — features that server and workstation users need but that Intel’s mobile chip entirely lacks.

The average benchmark scores tell the final story: AMD at 76,492 versus Intel at 76,024, a negligible 0.6% difference. These are equally matched processors in aggregate, but their strengths are inversely aligned. The data suggests that choosing between them is not about which is faster — it is about which workload profile matters more.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is the pick for integer-heavy processing, data compression, and physics simulations. Its 23.6% lead in integer math and 21.7% lead in physics demonstrate that 48 threads provide real advantages in these parallel workloads. The 12.9% edge in random string sorting and 10.3% edge in data compression further reinforce its suitability for database, scientific, and enterprise applications. The six-channel memory bus (230.4 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and ECC support add to its server credentials, while 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes allow extensive I/O expansion. Its 160 W TDP and Socket SP6 platform target embedded and workstation deployments where power efficiency is secondary to throughput and reliability.

Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX wins everywhere else. The Cinebench results are the most consistent — a 13.5% advantage across all multi-core and single-core tests. Floating-point math shows Intel at 193,324 versus 120,066 (+37.9%), prime number finding shows 457 versus 286 (+37.4%), and data encryption shows 48,016 versus 43,619 (+9.2%). The 50.1% single-thread lead in PassMark makes it the obvious choice for latency-sensitive workloads. The 55 W TDP, unlocked multiplier, and integrated Arc graphics point toward mobile and high-performance laptop use cases. With dual-channel memory and only 20 PCIe lanes, it is not built for server expansion — it is built for speed in a compact package. The data indicates that for most general-purpose computing, rendering, and single-threaded tasks, Intel’s design wins decisively.