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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen 3 110 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is not a contest of equals. The database records a full suite of results for the Intel part, while the AMD entry carries no benchmark scores at all, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50 among all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, posts an average benchmark score of 66159 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tracked. That gap alone frames the head-to-head: the Intel processor is the only one of the two with measurable performance data, and its results place it firmly among high-end desktop parts.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Cinebench R23 multicore test shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scoring 42718. For context, its nearest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PQE, averages 66099 in overall benchmark score, a delta of just 0.1 percent. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trails the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D by 0.4 percent in average score and sits 1 percent behind the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. These are narrow margins, meaning the 250KF Plus is effectively trading blows with flagship-class chips from both AMD and Intel.

In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Intel part scores 17941, and in Cinebench R15 multicore it reaches 4305. These results, combined with the R23 figure, show a consistent scaling pattern across Cinebench versions. The PassMark multithread score of 50146 reinforces the same picture. Data compression in PassMark hits 553155, while floating point math reaches 159824 and integer math lands at 123030. The extended instructions score is 42880, and random string sorting scores 67209. The physics test in PassMark yields 3183, and find prime numbers scores 452. Data encryption scores 41292.

Single-thread performance also favors the Intel chip, though the database shows no comparable AMD numbers to directly measure against. The Cinebench R23 single-core score is 6030, the R20 single-core score is 2532, and the R15 single-core score is 607. PassMark single-thread results appear twice in the data, both at 4698, which serves as a consistency check for the recorded figures. These single-core numbers place the 250KF Plus well above typical desktop processors, and the 93rd percentile overall rank reflects that.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 has no recorded wins in the head-to-head table, and the Intel part has no recorded wins either, but that is because the head-to-head benchmark array is empty. The wins tally shows 0 for both. What the data does show is that the Intel part has 17 separate benchmark entries, all with positive scores, while the AMD part has zero. This is not a situation where one chip wins some tests and loses others; the database simply contains no performance measurements for the AMD processor.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus also holds a clear advantage in memory bandwidth, with a recorded 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s for the AMD Ryzen 3 110. That is a 50 percent higher memory throughput figure, which directly feeds multi-threaded and memory-intensive workloads. The Intel chip also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while the AMD part runs PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Both support DDR5 memory and dual-channel operation, and both support ECC memory.

Clock speeds further separate the two. The Intel chip has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel chip is also multiplier unlocked, allowing overclocking, while the AMD part is locked. Thermal design power tells a similar story: the Intel processor is rated at 125 watts, the AMD at 28 watts. The AMD part is clearly designed for mobile efficiency, while the Intel part is a desktop powerhouse.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most users: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the processor with measured performance, and that performance is elite. Its 93rd percentile rank among all CPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 66159, puts it in the same class as the Intel Core 9 273PQE, which averages 66099, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which averages 65914. The delta percentages are tiny: 0.1 percent ahead of the Core 9 273PQE, 0.4 percent ahead of the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, 1 percent behind the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and 1.1 percent behind the AMD EPYC 4465P. That means the 250KF Plus is not just a strong desktop chip; it is statistically indistinguishable from some of the fastest processors in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110, with no benchmark scores recorded, cannot be evaluated on performance grounds. Its percentile rank of 50 suggests it sits at the median of all CPUs, but without actual test results, that rank carries little interpretive weight. What the AMD part does offer is a dramatically lower thermal design power of 28 watts, which makes it suitable for thin-and-light mobile systems. Its integrated Radeon 660M graphics provide display output and basic GPU acceleration, whereas the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all, listed as N/A.

For a desktop builder needing raw compute throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the only choice supported by measured data. It delivers Cinebench R23 multicore scores of 42718 and single-core scores of 6030, figures that place it in the top tier of the database. The launch MSRP for the Intel part is $184, and it is an unlocked, overclockable desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded and is a locked mobile chip on AMD Socket FP7.

For a mobile system builder prioritizing low power draw and integrated graphics, the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has clear qualitative appeal, but the database provides no performance numbers to validate its capabilities. The Intel part, despite lacking integrated graphics, compensates with superior memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 support, and a much larger cache hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and different market segments. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt-R, and is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. Its cache layout is 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The die size is 210 mm², and it supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes and includes integrated Radeon 660M graphics. The processor is designed for the mobile market, fits AMD Socket FP7, and carries the part number 100-000000549(FP7r2). It was released on 2025-09-30.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codenamed Arrow Lake Refresh, and is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy is substantially larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million, and the die size is 243 mm². It supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, and it uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. There is no integrated graphics. The processor targets the desktop market, fits Intel Socket 1851, is multiplier unlocked, and carries the part number SA4V3. It was released on 2026-03-10, and its launch MSRP is $184.

The architectural differences map directly onto their respective roles. The AMD chip uses fewer cores, lower clocks, a smaller cache, and a lower power envelope, all consistent with a mobile part. The Intel chip uses more cores, higher clocks, a much larger cache, and a higher power envelope, consistent with a desktop part. The process node difference, 6 nm versus 3 nm, reflects a generational gap in manufacturing technology, though both come from TSMC.

The memory bandwidth delta, 115.2 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s, is a direct consequence of the Intel part's higher-end platform. The PCIe generation difference, Gen 5 versus Gen 4, gives the Intel chip access to faster peripheral bandwidth for storage and GPUs. The cache differences are stark: the Intel chip has 30 MB of shared L3 versus 8 MB on the AMD chip, and its per-core L2 is 3 MB versus 512 KB. These cache advantages help explain why the Intel part scores so highly in multi-threaded and memory-heavy benchmarks.

The AMD chip includes integrated graphics, the Radeon 660M, which is useful for mobile systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The Intel chip has no integrated graphics, which means it requires a discrete GPU for any display output. This is a meaningful feature split for users deciding between a mobile APU and a desktop CPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?

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

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 includes integrated Radeon 660M graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each chip?

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

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to 76.8 GB/s for the AMD Ryzen 3 110.

Q: Is either processor multiplier unlocked?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is multiplier unlocked. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is not.

Q: What is the PCIe generation for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 110 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in every recorded benchmark category, simply because the database contains no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen 3 110. But beyond raw scores, the Intel part wins on several structural fronts. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache and 3 MB per-core L2 cache give it a massive advantage in cache-sensitive workloads. Its 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth supports faster data movement. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface enables higher-speed peripherals. Its 18 cores and 18 threads provide far more parallel throughput capacity than the AMD part's 4 cores and 8 threads. Its base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz are both substantially higher than the AMD part's 3.00 GHz and 4.30 GHz. Its 3 nm process node is more advanced than the AMD part's 6 nm node. Its average benchmark score of 66159 and 93rd percentile rank confirm its position among the fastest CPUs in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 3 110 wins on efficiency and integration. Its 28 watt TDP is less than a quarter of the Intel part's 125 watt TDP, making it suitable for passively cooled or low-power mobile systems. Its integrated Radeon 660M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its smaller die size of 210 mm², versus 243 mm² for the Intel part, suggests lower manufacturing cost per wafer, though the database does not record pricing for the AMD chip. Its mobile market segment and AMD Socket FP7 form factor align with thin-and-light laptop designs. Its PCIe Gen 4 support, while older than Gen 5, remains sufficient for most current peripherals.

The data does not support a performance comparison in favor of the AMD part, but it does support a use-case split. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice for desktop workloads that demand high multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42718 and single-core score of 6030. The AMD Ryzen 3 110 is the clear choice for mobile systems where power draw is the dominant constraint and integrated graphics are required. The Intel part is also the only one with a recorded launch MSRP, at $184, while the AMD part has no such figure in the database.

The nearest rival data for the Intel part shows it operating in rarefied company. Its average score of 66159 is within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core 9 273PQE, within 0.4 percent of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, and within 1 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Only the AMD EPYC 4465P sits ahead by a slightly larger margin, at 1.1 percent. These deltas indicate that the 250KF Plus is not merely competitive with high-end parts; it is effectively tied with them in aggregate performance. That places it in a different performance class entirely from the AMD Ryzen 3 110, which has no recorded benchmark scores and a median percentile rank. For any workload where measurable compute performance matters, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the only processor in this comparison with data to support a recommendation.