AMD Ryzen 3 110 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data in this comparison is heavily one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus holds every recorded benchmark score, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark entries in the database. This makes the head-to-head section a review of the Intel part's absolute performance rather than a true competitive matchup.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers 4640 points in Cinebench R15 multicore, 18442 points in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 30867 points in Cinebench R23 multicore. Single-core results are 328, 2603, and 2261 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively. These numbers place the chip at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 66855. The nearest rivals confirm the positioning: the AMD EPYC 4465P sits just 0.1% behind with an average score of 66925, the Intel Xeon 6515P trails by 0.2% at 67006, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX is 0.9% behind at 67469. The closest competitor, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, is 1.1% slower with an average score of 66159.

PassMark results add more texture. The Intel part scores 568721 in data compression, 42144 in data encryption, 44565 in extended instructions, and 486 in finding prime numbers. Floating point math reaches 162692, integer math hits 125091, and multithread performance records 51596. Physics processing scores 3494, random string sorting produces 69090, and single-thread performance is 4757 in both PassMark single-thread tests listed. These figures show consistent strength across different workload types, from memory-heavy tasks like data compression to compute-limited operations like prime number searches.

Because the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has zero benchmark entries, there are no direct wins for that processor to report. The database shows winsA as 0 and winsB as 0, which indicates no head-to-head benchmark pairs exist for these two products. The Intel processor therefore stands as the only measured performer in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every measurable category because it is the only processor with recorded scores. Its percentile ranking of 93 versus the AMD part's 50th percentile shows a substantial gap in overall database standing, though this is partly an artifact of missing data for the AMD chip.

For productivity and rendering workloads, the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30867 indicates strong multi-threaded capacity. The 18 cores and 18 threads allow parallel task execution across many threads simultaneously. The PassMark multithread score of 51596 reinforces this, suggesting the processor can handle heavily threaded applications such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific simulations. The data compression score of 568721 points to efficient handling of archive operations and database workloads. Data encryption at 42144 shows capable security-related processing.

Single-thread performance is also strong. The Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2261 and PassMark single-thread score of 4757 indicate the chip handles lightly threaded tasks like legacy applications, web browsing, and office productivity well. The boost clock of 5.30 GHz supports this conclusion, though the exact frequency-to-performance relationship is not directly measured here.

For the AMD Ryzen 3 110, the absence of benchmark data means no use-case advantages can be identified from measurements. Its specifications suggest a mobile-oriented design, but without scores, any performance claims would be unsupported. The processor's market segment is listed as Mobile, which implies it targets laptops and compact systems, but the database provides no performance evidence to quantify that role.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing approaches. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses a Zen 3+ architecture on the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, fabricated on a 3 nm node, also at TSMC. The smaller node gives Intel a density advantage, though the AMD chip's die size is 210 mm² versus Intel's 243 mm². Intel's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, while AMD's transistor count is not recorded.

Core counts differ dramatically. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads. This means the Intel chip has no hyperthreading, trading thread duplication for more physical cores. The AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 8 threads from 4 cores. Cache hierarchies also diverge. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's larger L3 cache is 3.75 times the AMD allocation, which helps with repeated data access patterns.

Memory support shows both use DDR5 and dual-channel buses, but bandwidth differs. AMD's memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s, while Intel's is 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The newer PCIe standard on the Intel side allows double the per-lane bandwidth for compatible devices.

Integrated graphics present another split. AMD includes Radeon 660M graphics, while Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Neither part's iGPU has benchmark scores in the database, so relative graphics performance remains unmeasured.

Clock speeds show Intel with higher figures. The AMD base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz. The Intel base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost of 5.30 GHz. Power consumption also differs significantly. AMD's TDP is 28 watts, while Intel's is 125 watts. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning, with the AMD chip designed for lower-power environments and the Intel chip for full desktop workloads.

The AMD processor uses the AMD Socket FP7, while Intel uses Socket 1851. The AMD processor has a locked multiplier, while the Intel processor has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. Release dates show AMD launched on September 30, 2025, and Intel on March 10, 2026. Both are listed as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 3 110 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus list ECC memory support as true.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor is unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has a locked multiplier.

Q: What is the Intel processor's launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a launch MSRP of $199.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear selection for anyone needing measured performance. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers benchmark scores across the Cinebench and PassMark suites, ranking at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its 18 cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth position it as a capable desktop processor for multi-threaded workloads. The unlocked multiplier allows frequency adjustment for users who want to push beyond stock settings.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark scores in the database, making performance comparisons impossible. Its specifications indicate a low-power mobile processor with 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 28 watt TDP. The 50th percentile ranking reflects its position among all CPUs, but without recorded measurements, this is not a performance validation. The chip's integrated Radeon 660M graphics and compact 210 mm² die suggest a focus on efficiency over absolute compute capability.

The choice depends on workload and platform. For desktop users with access to Socket 1851 motherboards and requiring multi-core throughput, the Intel part is the only option with verified results. The 125 watt TDP requires adequate cooling and power delivery, but the benchmark data justifies the platform investment. For mobile or low-power systems using AMD Socket FP7, the Ryzen 3 110 offers a lightweight alternative, though its performance characteristics remain unquantified in the database. The Intel processor's nearest rivals, all within 1.1% of its average score, confirm that it competes at the high end of desktop processors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 110 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 4 | 18 |

| Threads | 8 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 660M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-03-10 |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |