AMD Ryzen 5 220 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single head-to-head test in the database. Across 17 direct comparisons, the AMD Ryzen 5 220 records zero wins. That does not mean the Ryzen 5 220 has no role; rather, the data shows two processors aimed at entirely different market segments with a massive performance gulf between them.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48,945 versus the Ryzen 5 220's 15,502, a delta of -68.3% from the Intel part's perspective (meaning the AMD chip trails by that margin). The same pattern holds in PassMark multithread: 56,602 versus 18,582, a -67.2% gap. For heavily parallel tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computation, the Intel part is the clear choice based on these figures.

Single-thread performance also favors Intel, though by a smaller margin. In PassMark single thread, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 versus 3,646 for the Ryzen 5 220, a -25.3% delta. That is the narrowest gap in the entire head-to-head set, indicating the AMD chip's Zen 4 cores are relatively competitive per-thread, just not at the same level as Intel's fastest cores.

The Ryzen 5 220's strengths are not visible in raw performance but in its positioning. With a 28 W TDP, 6 cores, and 12 threads, it targets thin-and-light mobile systems. The Intel part, at 65 W TDP with 24 cores and 24 threads, targets desktop towers. The database places the Ryzen 5 220 at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile. That 20-point percentile gap frames the entire comparison: the AMD chip is above average, the Intel chip is near the top of the entire CPU field.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It integrates 20,900 million transistors on a die of 137 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) on TSMC's 3 nm process, with 17,800 million transistors spread across a 243 mm² die. Despite fewer transistors, the Intel die is nearly twice as large, indicating a more complex physical layout.

Core configuration differs fundamentally. The Ryzen 5 220 has 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core supports two threads via simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, with one thread per core. Intel's design apparently does not use hyperthreading on this part, relying instead on raw core count.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD chip provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. That larger cache allocation, especially the 36 MB L3, helps explain the Intel part's strong performance in data-heavy workloads like PassMark data compression, where it scores 602,121 versus 212,739 for AMD.

Both support DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses, but the Intel part has higher memory bandwidth: 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. The Intel processor also supports ECC memory, while the AMD one does not. PCIe capabilities differ as well: AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the Ryzen 5 220 carries a Radeon 740M, while the Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Market segments are explicit in the data. The Ryzen 5 220 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, released in January 2025. The Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, released in December 2024. The AMD part is locked (multiplier not unlocked), as is the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 win every benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: The Intel part has 24 cores versus 6, a higher boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz), more L3 cache (36 MB versus 16 MB), and higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s). These advantages compound across all tested workload categories.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 220 competitive in single-threaded performance?

A: It is closer in single-thread tests than in multi-thread tests. In PassMark single thread, the Intel part leads by 25.3%, the smallest delta in the entire comparison set. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Intel score is 6,909 versus 2,188, a 68.3% gap, so the AMD chip still trails substantially in that workload.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the AMD Ryzen 5 220. Both use dual-channel DDR5, but Intel's implementation delivers higher throughput.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 does not.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 220 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 W. The Intel part consumes more power, which aligns with its desktop segment and higher core count.

Q: How do the two compare in the overall database percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 220 sits at the 75th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is at the 95th percentile. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 75,488, compared to 22,289 for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 220 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 20,900 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 137 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 14 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 740M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | January 2025 | December 2024 |

| Launch MSRP | Not available | $579 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 recorded comparisons, but the margins vary significantly by workload type. The widest gaps appear in math-intensive and physics workloads. In PassMark find prime numbers, Intel scores 459 versus 65 for AMD, a -85.8% delta. That is the largest relative difference in the entire dataset. Similarly, PassMark floating point math shows Intel at 194,988 versus 35,500, a -81.8% delta. These results indicate the Intel part's core count and architecture provide a massive advantage in pure arithmetic throughput.

The narrowest margin is in PassMark single thread: 4,881 versus 3,646, a -25.3% delta. This suggests that per-core performance, while still favoring Intel, is the closest point of comparison. The AMD chip's Zen 4 cores are not far behind Intel's fastest single core in this specific test, even though the Intel boost clock is 5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz.

Cinebench results show consistent deltas around -68% across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 4,933 versus 1,562 (-68.3%). In R20 multicore, 20,556 versus 6,510 (-68.3%). In R23 multicore, 48,945 versus 15,502 (-68.3%). The consistency across Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance ratio between the two processors regardless of test iteration. Single-core Cinebench results show the same -68.4% delta in R15 and R20, and -68.3% in R23, with Intel scores of 696, 2,901, and 6,909 respectively.

PassMark data compression shows Intel at 602,121 versus 212,739 (-64.7%), while data encryption shows 46,949 versus 12,493 (-73.4%). Extended instructions: 45,357 versus 15,512 (-65.8%). Integer math: 164,869 versus 57,987 (-64.8%). Random string sorting: 73,651 versus 25,433 (-65.5%). Physics: 3,598 versus 983 (-72.7%). The physics delta is particularly large, suggesting the Intel part handles simulation-style workloads much more efficiently.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the overall picture: Intel at 75,488 versus AMD at 22,289. Intel's nearest rivals include AMD EPYC server processors and Ryzen 7 PRO parts, with deltas under 0.3%. AMD's nearest rivals include Intel Core i7-10700K and Core i5-13500H, with deltas under 1.5%. This places both processors in different performance tiers entirely.

The Verdict

The data directs each processor to a different buyer. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, with its 95th percentile ranking and 75,488 average score, is the choice for anyone needing maximum compute throughput in a desktop system. Its 24 cores, 36 MB L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth deliver dominant results in every recorded benchmark, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark encryption and physics simulation. The 65 W TDP and $579 launch MSRP position it as a high-end desktop part for workloads that scale with core count.

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 serves a different purpose. Its 28 W TDP, mobile socket, and 75th percentile ranking make it suitable for portable systems where power efficiency matters more than raw performance. The database shows it is competitive with mid-range desktop processors from previous generations, such as the Intel Core i7-10700K (0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (1.4% delta). For a mobile chip, this level of performance is respectable, but it cannot match a 24-core desktop processor.

No benchmark in the dataset favors the AMD part. Every delta percentage is negative from AMD's perspective, meaning Intel leads in all cases. The closest contest is single-thread PassMark at -25.3%, and even there Intel holds a clear advantage. Buyers choosing between these two are not comparing similar products; they are comparing a mobile efficiency chip against a desktop flagship. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins on performance across the board. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 wins on power consumption and mobile suitability, though those attributes are not captured in the benchmark scores.