AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different corners of the processor market, and the recorded benchmark data reflects that divide. The Ryzen 3 30 is a 15-watt mobile part built for efficiency, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a 125-watt desktop processor designed for high-throughput workloads. In head-to-head testing, the Intel part secures 11 wins across all 11 shared benchmark tests, while the AMD part records zero wins. This is not a close contest in raw performance, but the data shows where each processor still makes sense.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single recorded benchmark, but the margin varies significantly by workload type. The largest advantage appears in single-threaded tests, where the Intel part scores 4698 against the Ryzen 3 30's 2465, a 47.5 percent gap. This suggests the Intel processor delivers substantially better responsiveness in applications that rely on one or two cores, such as older games, spreadsheet calculations, or lightly threaded productivity tools.

The multithreaded results tell a similar story with an even larger gap. The Intel part scores 50146 in the PassMark multi-thread test, while the AMD part manages 9027, a difference of 82 percent. The physics test shows an 86.3 percent gap, with scores of 3183 and 436 respectively. These results indicate the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, scientific simulations, and any workload that scales across many cores.

The Ryzen 3 30's only practical advantage comes from its power envelope. With a 15-watt TDP, it draws far less power than the 125-watt Intel part. This makes the AMD processor suitable for thin-and-light laptops, fanless designs, or any system where heat and battery life matter more than raw throughput. The data does not show the Ryzen 3 30 winning any performance test, but the efficiency profile is the only measurable area where it leads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The Ryzen 3 30 is built on AMD's Zen 2 architecture with the Mendocino codename, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The die size is 100 mm², and the processor uses AMD Socket FT6, which is a mobile platform.

The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Intel's Arrow Lake Refresh codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with a much larger 243 mm² die size and 17,800 million transistors. The Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. It uses Intel Socket 1851 and is a desktop part.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Ryzen 3 30 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger cache hierarchy on the Intel side helps explain its performance advantage in repeated or data-heavy workloads.

The memory support also differs. The AMD part supports LPDDR5 memory with dual-channel access and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR5 with dual-channel access and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. PCIe support is another divider: the Ryzen 3 30 uses Gen 3 with 4 lanes, while the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is reversed. The Ryzen 3 30 includes a Radeon 610M GPU, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all (listed as N/A). This means the AMD processor can drive a display without a discrete GPU, while the Intel part requires a separate graphics card for any video output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data compression test shows the Intel part scoring 553155 against 135834 for the AMD part, a 75.4 percent gap. This is one of the smaller multithreaded deltas, but still a dominant result. Data encryption shows a 84.4 percent gap, with scores of 41292 and 6461. Extended instruction tests show a 85.8 percent gap, with 42880 versus 6075.

The prime number finding test produces the largest relative gap at 95.6 percent, with scores of 452 and 20. This test is heavily dependent on integer throughput and cache access, where the Intel part's 30 MB L3 cache and higher clocks provide a massive edge. Floating point math shows a 91 percent gap, with 159824 versus 14448. Integer math shows a 75.7 percent gap, with 123030 versus 29846.

The random string sorting test shows a 78.5 percent gap, with 67209 versus 14431. The multi-thread test shows an 82 percent gap, with 50146 versus 9027. Physics shows an 86.3 percent gap, with 3183 versus 436. The single-thread test, recorded twice with identical scores, shows a 47.5 percent gap, with 4698 versus 2465.

The single-thread gap is the smallest of all 11 tests, which makes sense given the clock differences. The Intel part boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD part boosts to 4.10 GHz. The Intel part also has a 3 nm process node, which typically allows higher clock speeds at similar power. Even so, a 47.5 percent single-thread lead is substantial and indicates the Intel architecture is simply more efficient per clock in this metric.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several fields where the two processors differ. The core count is the most obvious: 4 cores for the AMD part versus 18 cores for the Intel part. Thread count follows the same pattern: 8 threads versus 18 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz and 4.20 GHz, respectively, and boost clocks are 4.10 GHz and 5.30 GHz.

TDP is a major differentiator: 15 watts for the AMD part versus 125 watts for the Intel part. The socket differs (AMD Socket FT6 versus Intel Socket 1851), as does the process node (6 nm versus 3 nm). The die size is 100 mm² versus 243 mm², and the Intel part lists 17,800 million transistors while the AMD part does not list a transistor count.

Cache configurations differ across all three levels. L1 is 64 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 is 512 KB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 is 4 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory support is LPDDR5 versus DDR5, with bandwidth of 88.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. ECC support is false for AMD and true for Intel.

PCIe support differs: Gen 3 with 4 lanes versus Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on the AMD part (Radeon 610M) and absent on the Intel part. The multiplier is locked on the AMD part and unlocked on the Intel part. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184, while the AMD part has no listed MSRP. The market segment is Mobile for AMD and Desktop for Intel. The Intel part is listed as part of the Core Ultra Series 2, while the AMD part has no series designation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel part scores 4698 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the AMD part scores 2465, a 47.5 percent difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 does not.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 includes a Radeon 610M integrated GPU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The AMD part supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part supports DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 boosts to 4.10 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the performance leader by every recorded metric, with an average benchmark score of 66159 compared to 20137 for the Ryzen 3 30. The Intel part sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits in the 74th percentile. The nearest rival data confirms the gap: the Intel part is within 1.1 percent of processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, while the AMD part trades within 0.7 percent of the Intel Core i7-9700K and Intel Core i7-11800H.

For users building a desktop system with a discrete GPU, the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus offers 18 cores, a 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB of L3 cache, and Gen 5 PCIe support. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, and the 125-watt TDP is reasonable for a high-core-count desktop part. The lack of integrated graphics is a non-issue when a separate GPU is present.

For users needing a low-power mobile processor, the Ryzen 3 30 provides a 15-watt TDP, integrated graphics, and a compact 100 mm² die. It will handle basic productivity and light multitasking, but the benchmark results show it is not competitive in compute-heavy tasks. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with 4 MB of L3 cache limits its throughput potential, and the 88.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is lower than the Intel part's 115.2 GB/s.

The choice is straightforward: the Intel part wins on performance, while the AMD part wins on efficiency and integrated graphics. The benchmark database confirms the Intel part is in a different performance class, with a 93rd percentile ranking versus 74th for the AMD part. The only scenario where the Ryzen 3 30 makes sense is a system where power draw and embedded GPU capability outweigh all performance considerations.