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

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX are both 24-core processors, but they are engineered for entirely different environments. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with 48 threads and a 160W TDP, while the Ultra 9 is a mobile processor with 24 threads and a 55W TDP. Benchmark results show a near-total tie in average scores, with the EPYC at 76,492 and the Intel at 76,155 (a 0.4% difference), placing both in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The data reveals a clear split: Intel dominates in raw single-thread speed and floating-point workloads, while AMD wins decisively in multi-threaded Cinebench R23 and integer math. The choice comes down to whether the workload prioritizes massive parallel throughput or high-frequency responsiveness.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is the pick for heavy multi-threaded server workloads. It wins 7 of 17 head-to-head tests, but its victories include some of the most demanding ones: a 14% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (41,542 vs 36,429.5) and a 24.6% lead in PassMark integer math (193,256 vs 155,076). Its 48 threads, enabled by SMT, give it a decisive edge in any workload that scales with thread count.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is the choice for single-thread-bound tasks and floating-point-heavy applications. It wins 10 of 17 tests, including a 49% lead in PassMark single-thread (4,618 vs 2,357) and a 38.4% lead in floating-point math (194,998 vs 120,066). Its 5.50 GHz boost clock, versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, explains this dominance in latency-sensitive work.

The data shows no overall winner. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 76,492 is statistically identical to the Ultra 9's 76,155, with the deltaPct between them at just 0.4%. The verdict is workload-dependent: choose AMD for thread-scaled server tasks, Intel for response-time-critical mobile or edge deployments. The 160W TDP of the EPYC versus the 55W TDP of the Ultra 9 further reinforces that these are built for different power envelopes, not competing in the same chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 48 threads, exactly double its 24 cores. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 threads, equal to its 24 cores, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The EPYC scores 76,492 on average, while the Intel scores 76,155. The deltaPct is just 0.4% in favor of AMD, and both sit in the 95th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins decisively, scoring 4,618 compared to the EPYC's 2,357. That is a 49% advantage for Intel, driven by its 5.50 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the AMD EPYC win any multi-core tests?

A: Yes, it wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 41,542 versus Intel's 36,429.5 (a 14% lead). It also wins PassMark integer math by 24.6% and multithread tests are split, with Intel taking PassMark multithread by 14.1%.

Q: What are the memory channel differences?

A: The EPYC supports six-channel DDR5 memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Ultra 9 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD EPYC has no integrated graphics listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different silicon designs. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P is built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, using a 5 nm process from TSMC. It packs 17,750 million transistors across a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 73 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX, on a more advanced 3 nm TSMC process, with 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die.

The cache hierarchies are radically different. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a large 64 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers a much larger 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but a smaller 36 MB shared L3 cache. This explains why the EPYC excels in large working-set server workloads, while Intel's larger per-core caches benefit single-threaded responsiveness.

The EPYC's Zen 4c cores are density-optimized for server throughput, running at a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost of 3.00 GHz. Intel's Arrow Lake cores are performance-oriented, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost of 5.50 GHz. The EPYC's 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) dwarf the Intel's 20 lanes, reinforcing the EPYC's role as a system hub. The Intel part includes integrated graphics, a feature absent from the EPYC. Both support DDR5, but the EPYC's six-channel memory bus versus Intel's dual-channel is a major architectural divergence.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are stark. The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel has 24 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC operates at a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost of 3.00 GHz; the Intel runs at 2.80 GHz base and 5.50 GHz boost. The EPYC's TDP is 160W, versus the Intel's 55W.

The socket types differ completely: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Intel uses Intel BGA 2114. The process nodes differ, with the EPYC on 5 nm and the Intel on 3 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are nearly identical at 17,750 million versus 17,800 million, but the die sizes diverge dramatically: 2x 73 mm² for the EPYC versus 243 mm² for the Intel.

Memory support shows the EPYC with a six-channel bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, versus Intel's dual-channel and 102.4 GB/s. The EPYC offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel provides 20 lanes. The EPYC has no integrated graphics; the Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a locked multiplier, while the Intel is a mobile part with an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC released on 2023-09-17, and the Intel on 2025-01-12.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are contradictory and revealing. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel wins by a massive 26% (5,656.5 vs 4,187). But in R23 multi-core, the AMD wins by 14% (41,542 vs 36,429.5). This reversal suggests the EPYC's 48 threads scale better with longer, more demanding multi-core workloads, while the Intel's high boost clock dominates shorter tests. In single-core, the AMD wins R15 by 82.4% (590 vs 323.5) and R23 by 168.1% (5,864 vs 2,187.5), which is unexpected given Intel's clock advantage.

PassMark tests tell a different story. The Intel wins single-thread by 49% (4,618 vs 2,357), floating-point math by 38.4% (194,998 vs 120,066), and prime number finding by 37.8% (460 vs 286). The AMD wins integer math by 24.6% (193,256 vs 155,076), random string sorting by 10.8% (85,505 vs 77,196), and data compression by 7.9% (681,754 vs 631,885). The Intel also takes data encryption by 10.2% (48,567 vs 43,619) and extended instructions by 6.2% (49,148 vs 46,091).

The PassMark multithread test goes to Intel by 14.1% (56,902 vs 48,873), yet the AMD wins the physics test by 18.2% (4,110 vs 3,476). The overall head-to-head tally is 10 wins for Intel and 7 for AMD. The data shows Intel's strength in single-threaded and floating-point execution, while AMD's wins concentrate in integer-heavy and data-processing tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins where thread count and memory bandwidth matter. Its 48 threads and six-channel memory bus deliver a 14% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 24.6% win in integer math. It also wins data compression by 7.9%, random string sorting by 10.8%, and the physics test by 18.2%. This makes it the choice for server-side databases, compression pipelines, and any workload that can saturate all threads with large data sets.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins where clock speed and per-core efficiency dominate. Its 5.50 GHz boost clock drives a 49% win in PassMark single-thread and a 38.4% win in floating-point math. It also wins data encryption by 10.2%, extended instructions by 6.2%, and prime number finding by 37.8%. The Cinebench R15 multi-core win by 26% and PassMark multithread win by 14.1% show it can handle parallel loads too, but its 24-thread limit caps scaling.

The use-case split is clear from the data. For embedded server roles requiring maximum throughput per socket, the EPYC's 48 threads and 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth are decisive. For mobile or edge deployments where single-thread latency and floating-point performance are critical, the Ultra 9's 5.50 GHz boost and integrated graphics make it the superior option. The EPYC's 160W TDP versus Intel's 55W further separates them, with the AMD part suited to power-rich server rooms and the Intel part designed for power-constrained mobile systems.