AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P in raw rendering workloads, but the AMD part counters with decisive wins in data-heavy and integer-focused tasks. Across the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, Intel takes 12 wins to AMD’s 5, yet the margin of victory in AMD’s categories is often larger than Intel’s in several of its own.

In Cinebench, the Intel chip is consistently 15.1% faster across all three versions. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945 versus 41,542, and the single-core score of 6,909 versus 5,864, both reflect that same delta. This uniformity suggests a per-clock advantage rather than a scaling effect, which matters for threaded workloads that don’t exceed 24 threads.

The widest single-core gap appears in PassMark single-thread testing, where Intel scores 4,881 against AMD’s 2,357 — a 51.7% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. It is not a marginal difference; it is a fundamental gap in per-thread throughput. The EPYC’s 2.55 GHz base clock and 3.00 GHz boost clock simply cannot match the Ultra 9’s 2.50 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks.

However, AMD’s wins are not trivial. The EPYC Embedded 8224P leads by 17.2% in PassMark integer math (193,256 vs 164,869) and by 16.1% in random string sorting (85,505 vs 73,651). Data compression shows a 13.2% lead (681,754 vs 602,121), and physics simulation is 14.2% ahead (4,110 vs 3,598). Extended instructions also favor AMD, but narrowly at 1.6% (46,091 vs 45,357).

Intel’s other wins include floating-point math (194,988 vs 120,066, a 38.4% gap), find prime numbers (459 vs 286, a 37.7% gap), data encryption (46,949 vs 43,619, a 7.1% gap), and the PassMark multi-thread test (56,602 vs 48,873, a 13.7% gap). The pattern is clear: Intel excels at arithmetic-heavy and encryption tasks, while AMD wins on memory-bandwidth-sensitive operations like compression and sorting.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite design philosophies. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P uses Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process, codenamed Siena, and belongs to the EPYC 8004 series. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, with a 64 MB shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core. The die is split into two 73 mm² chiplets, totaling 17,750 million transistors.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors in a single 243 mm² die. It also has 24 cores but only 24 threads — no hyperthreading. Its cache hierarchy is larger per core: 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core, but the shared L3 is smaller at 36 MB. This trade-off favors Intel for per-core locality and AMD for aggregate shared cache.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. AMD supports six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. That 128 GB/s difference explains why AMD wins compression and sorting benchmarks — those workloads thrive on memory throughput. Intel counters with a much higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, which drives its single-thread dominance.

PCIe lane count is another major split: AMD offers Gen 5 with 96 CPU-only lanes versus Intel’s 20. For embedded server workloads, that lane advantage is enormous. Intel includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units; AMD has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory and DDR5. The EPYC’s TDP is 160 W versus Intel’s 65 W, reflecting the server-oriented power budget.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is the clear choice for data-proportional workloads. Its 13.2% lead in data compression and 16.1% in random string sorting point to a system optimized for moving and organizing large datasets. The 17.2% integer math advantage and 14.2% physics win further suggest strong sustained multi-threaded throughput when memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. The six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s makes this part ideal for virtualization hosts, database servers, or any workload that streams data through memory rather than depending on per-core frequency.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the winner for latency-critical and arithmetic-heavy tasks. The 51.7% single-thread lead is decisive for responsive desktop use, compilation, or any serial code path. Floating-point math at 38.4% ahead and prime-number finding at 37.7% ahead show a chip that crunches numbers faster per core. The 15.1% Cinebench advantage across the board indicates that even multi-core rendering tasks — which should theoretically favor AMD’s 48 threads — are faster on Intel’s 24 threads, likely due to higher sustained clocks and better per-core IPC.

For encryption, Intel’s 7.1% win in data encryption is notable but not overwhelming. PassMark multi-thread also goes to Intel by 13.7%, suggesting that the Ultra 9’s higher frequency compensates for half the thread count in most mixed workloads. AMD’s only wins are in workloads where memory bandwidth or integer throughput dominates — a narrow but meaningful niche.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 24 |

| Threads | 48 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 160 W | 65 W |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 17,750 million | 17,800 million |

| 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 |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 96 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 (CPU only) |

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

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $579 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 48 threads versus 24 on the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Despite this 2x thread advantage, Intel wins the PassMark multi-thread test by 13.7%.

Q: Why does Intel win Cinebench multi-core despite fewer threads?

A: Intel’s 5.60 GHz boost clock versus AMD’s 3.00 GHz, combined with a 3 nm process, delivers 15.1% higher scores in every Cinebench version. The higher per-core throughput outweighs the thread count deficit.

Q: What is the single biggest performance gap between them?

A: PassMark single-thread testing shows Intel at 4,881 versus AMD at 2,357, a 51.7% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head dataset.

Q: Does AMD win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes. AMD leads by 17.2% in integer math, 16.1% in random string sorting, 14.2% in physics, and 13.2% in data compression. These are memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads where AMD’s 230.4 GB/s six-channel bus provides a clear edge.

Q: Which chip supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P supports Gen 5 with 96 CPU-only lanes, versus Intel’s 20 lanes. This makes AMD far more suitable for high-expansion embedded server configurations.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory. Both also use DDR5, though AMD uses six channels and Intel uses two.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P if your workload is defined by memory bandwidth and integer throughput. The data shows a 13.2% lead in data compression, 16.1% in random string sorting, and 17.2% in integer math — all indicators of a processor that excels in data movement and multi-threaded server tasks. The 96 PCIe lanes and six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the obvious pick for embedded server deployments where I/O expansion and memory saturation matter more than raw clock speed. Its 48 threads and 64 MB shared L3 cache provide ample headroom for virtualization and database workloads.

Choose the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 if you need raw speed and per-thread performance. The 51.7% single-thread advantage, 38.4% floating-point lead, and 15.1% Cinebench edge across all versions make it the better processor for desktop, rendering, and latency-sensitive applications. The 65 W TDP versus AMD’s 160 W also means significantly lower power draw for comparable or better performance in most mixed workloads. The 24 threads are clearly sufficient to outperform AMD’s 48 threads in the majority of benchmarks — 12 wins out of 17 — which reflects the efficiency of the 3 nm Arrow Lake design.

The average benchmark scores confirm the close overall standing: AMD at 76,492 versus Intel at 75,488, a marginal 1.3% difference in AMD’s favor on aggregate. Both sit at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. But averages mask the distinct application domains. Intel wins rendering, encryption, and arithmetic; AMD wins compression, sorting, and integer throughput. For an embedded server that moves data, AMD is the verdict. For a desktop or workstation that computes quickly, Intel is the verdict. The data does not support a single universal winner — it supports two purpose-built designs for different jobs.