AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 across all eleven shared benchmark tests. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 does not win a single comparison, with the Intel part delivering substantially higher scores in every measured workload.

The most lopsided result appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 against the AMD Ryzen 3 30's 20, a delta of -95.6%. This test is highly sensitive to raw integer throughput and cache behavior, and the gap here is the largest in the entire comparison set. Floating point math shows a similarly dominant margin: the Intel chip records 194988 versus 14448 for the AMD part, a -92.6% difference. The AMD processor's score is barely above one-tenth of the Intel result, indicating a fundamental throughput disadvantage in numerically intensive workloads.

The passmark_extended_instructions test shows Intel leading 45357 to 6075, a -86.6% delta. This workload exercises SIMD and specialized instruction paths, where the Arrow Lake architecture's wider execution resources and higher clocks prove decisive. Data encryption follows at 46949 versus 6461, a -86.2% gap, while physics simulation shows 3598 against 436, a -87.9% margin. The physics test is particularly revealing: the AMD Ryzen 3 30's score of 436 is an order of magnitude below the Intel result, reflecting the massive core-count disparity between the two parts.

In multithreaded throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 56602 in passmark_multithread versus 9027 for the AMD Ryzen 3 30, a -84.1% delta. Integer math shows 164869 against 29846, a -81.9% difference, and random string sorting shows 73651 versus 14431, a -80.4% gap. Data compression records 602121 for Intel and 135834 for AMD, a -77.4% margin, the narrowest delta among the multithreaded tests but still a decisive victory.

Single-thread performance is the closest contest in the entire dataset, yet the Intel part still wins decisively. The passmark_single_thread test shows 4881 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 2465 for the Ryzen 3 30, a -49.5% delta. This means the Intel chip is nearly twice as fast in single-core work, which is notable given that the AMD part's boost clock of 4.10 GHz is not drastically lower on paper than the Intel boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The 1.50 GHz clock advantage, combined with architectural differences, produces this near-doubling of single-thread score.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 posts an average of 75488 across its benchmark suite, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 averages 20137. The Intel part sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the AMD part ranks at the 74th percentile. For context, the Ryzen 3 30's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U at 20249 (-0.6% delta), the AMD EPYC 7713P at 20024 (0.6% delta), the Intel Core i7-9700K at 20271 (-0.7% delta), and the Intel Core i7-11800H at 19998 (0.7% delta). The Core Ultra 9 285 sits alongside much larger server and workstation parts: the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75582 (-0.1% delta), the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75373 (0.2% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75716 (-0.3% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75738 (-0.3% delta). This places the two processors in completely different performance tiers, with the Intel part competing against enterprise-class silicon while the AMD part trades blows with mid-range mobile chips from several generations ago.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies, market segments, and manufacturing generations. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 100 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors. The Intel part is physically much larger and packs significantly more silicon area, which contributes to its throughput advantages.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 provides 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides 24 cores and 24 threads, with no SMT, meaning every thread maps to a dedicated physical core. This 6x core advantage and 3x thread advantage explains much of the multithreaded performance gap, though the single-thread result shows that per-core efficiency also favors Intel.

Cache hierarchies reflect the different target workloads. The AMD part 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 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 difference alone is 9x in Intel's favor, which directly benefits the data compression, random string sorting, and find prime numbers workloads where large working sets must stay resident in cache.

Clock behavior also differs. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The base clocks are close, but the Intel boost clock is 1.50 GHz higher. Power envelopes follow the performance split: the AMD part carries a 15 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 65 W. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Memory support and platform connectivity are distinct as well. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses LPDDR5 memory with dual-channel support and 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses DDR5, also dual-channel, with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support enabled. The Intel part provides a 14.4 GB/s bandwidth advantage, which helps in memory-bound workloads. PCIe connectivity favors Intel substantially: the Core Ultra 9 285 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 3 30 offers Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel platform supports five times the PCIe lanes at two generations newer, which matters for desktop expansion options, though the mobile-oriented AMD part is not designed for such configurations.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 includes a Radeon 610M, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD part targets mobile systems with a modest iGPU, while the Intel desktop part includes a more substantial graphics block.

Market segment and socket confirm the positioning gap. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FT6, released on 2025-09-30. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, released on 2024-12-31. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $579. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Production status is active for both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the passmark_multithread benchmark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 56602, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 9027, giving Intel a -84.1% delta advantage.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 in passmark_single_thread, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 2465, a -49.5% delta. Intel is nearly twice as fast.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has an average benchmark score of 20137. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC support.

The Verdict

The data describes two processors that occupy entirely different market positions with no meaningful overlap in performance. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 delivers 4 cores, 8 threads, a 4.10 GHz boost clock, and a 15 W TDP, aimed at mobile systems where power efficiency is the priority. Its average benchmark score of 20137 places it at the 74th percentile of all CPUs, adjacent to the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U, AMD EPYC 7713P, Intel Core i7-9700K, and Intel Core i7-11800H. These are all capable mainstream processors, but none of them approach the performance class of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 24 cores, 24 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, and a 65 W TDP for desktop systems. Its average benchmark score of 75488 places it at the 95th percentile, alongside the AMD EPYC 8224P, AMD EPYC 4545P, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755. This is enterprise-class and high-end workstation territory.

For every benchmark in the head-to-head set, the Intel part wins by margins ranging from -49.5% in single-thread work to -95.6% in prime number calculation. The smallest gap appears in single-thread performance, where the Intel part's superior boost clock and newer architecture still deliver nearly double the score. The largest gaps appear in workloads that scale with core count, cache capacity, and raw throughput, areas where the 24-core Intel part has overwhelming advantages.

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 is a low-power mobile part whose design goals center on efficiency within a 15 W envelope, not on competing with a 65 W desktop flagship. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is designed to maximize desktop throughput across every workload class. The recorded data confirms that these two processors should never be considered alternatives for the same use case. The AMD part suits power-constrained mobile systems, while the Intel part suits high-performance desktop builds. The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the faster processor in every measured dimension.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 30 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 24 |

| Threads | 8 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FT6 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Mendocino | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Die Size | 100 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 610M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $579 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | Not recorded | SRQD4 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 20137 | 75488 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 74 | 95 |