AMD Ryzen 5 220 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints a fascinating picture of two very different mobile processors. Across the 17 recorded benchmark comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V claims 12 wins while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 takes 5, but the margin story is far more complex than the raw win count suggests.

The Intel part's most dominant victories come in specialized computational workloads. In passmark_find_prime_numbers, the Core Ultra 9 288V scores 195 against the Ryzen 5 220's 65, a staggering 200% advantage. This is not a small edge; it is a categorical difference in how the two architectures handle prime number generation. Similarly, passmark_floating_point_math shows Intel ahead by 67.7%, with scores of 59536 versus 35500. The physics test follows the same pattern: Intel scores 1637 to AMD's 983, a 66.5% lead. These three results suggest the Lunar Lake silicon has a substantial throughput advantage in mathematically intensive, single-threaded or lightly threaded scenarios.

Single-core performance also favors Intel decisively in the Cinebench suite. The cinebench_r15_singlecore test shows Intel at 301.5 versus AMD's 220, a 37% gap. The r20_singlecore and r23_singlecore tests show narrower Intel leads of 8.6% and an AMD lead of 10.9%, respectively. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions is worth investigating. The r15 and r20 results favor Intel, but the r23 single-core result flips in favor of AMD, with the Ryzen 5 220 scoring 2188 against Intel's 1950. The passmark_single_thread test confirms Intel's overall single-thread superiority at 4274 versus 3646, a 17.2% advantage.

Multi-core results are where the story gets genuinely complicated. In cinebench_r15_multicore, Intel wins narrowly at 1583 versus 1562, a 1.3% margin. In r20_multicore, Intel extends the lead to 8.6%, scoring 7069 against 6510. But in r23_multicore, the results reverse dramatically: AMD scores 15502 versus Intel's 10178, a 34.3% deficit for Intel. This is the single largest multi-core swing in the dataset. The passmark_multithread test shows Intel ahead at 19810 versus 18582, a 6.6% lead, which partially contradicts the r23 result. The data suggests that the Ryzen 5 220's 12 threads versus Intel's 8 threads become decisive in certain long-duration multi-core workloads, while Intel's architecture holds up better in others.

AMD also wins in integer math, scoring 57987 versus Intel's 44019, a 24.1% advantage. Data compression favors AMD at 212739 versus 186521, a 12.3% lead. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 25433 versus 22622, an 11.1% margin. These results cluster around memory-intensive and integer-heavy operations, hinting at a different strength profile.

Intel's remaining wins include data encryption at 14141 versus 12493, a 13.2% lead, and extended instructions at 15613 versus 15512, a marginal 0.7% edge. The encryption result is notable because it combines integer math with data movement, yet Intel still wins despite losing the pure integer math test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial and explains much of the benchmark divergence. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is built on Lunar Lake, a 3 nm process from TSMC. It features 8 cores and 8 threads, meaning no hyperthreading. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 uses Zen 4 architecture on Hawk Point, manufactured on a 4 nm process also from TSMC, and it packs 6 cores with 12 threads thanks to simultaneous multithreading.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design priorities. The Ryzen 5 220 contains 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database, but the process node difference (3 nm versus 4 nm) suggests Intel is chasing density and power efficiency.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. AMD offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but a larger 16 MB of shared L3. The L3 advantage for AMD (16 MB versus 12 MB) likely contributes to its wins in data compression and random string sorting, where larger working sets can stay on-chip.

Memory support diverges completely. Intel uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel's memory bandwidth is 52% higher, which explains its dominance in floating-point math and physics tests where data throughput is critical. AMD's lower bandwidth but higher core count and thread count create a different balance.

The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel pairs the CPU with Arc 140V, while AMD uses Radeon 740M. Neither is benchmarked in this dataset, so no performance comparison is possible, but the naming suggests different feature sets. PCIe support also differs: Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes. AMD's additional lanes could matter for expandability, while Intel's Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth.

The power envelope is close: Intel has a 30 W TDP, AMD has 28 W. Both are mobile parts, both are actively produced, and both are multiplier-locked. The release dates are about four months apart: Intel launched on 2024-09-23, AMD on 2025-01-05. The Intel part belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, while AMD's series field is null, though the generation is listed as Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)).

The Verdict

The benchmark data does not support a simple "this CPU is better" conclusion. Instead, the results indicate two distinct optimization targets. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the stronger choice for workloads dominated by floating-point math, physics simulation, encryption, and single-threaded responsiveness. Its 67.7% lead in floating-point math and 66.5% lead in physics are decisive. The 200% margin in prime number finding is extraordinary and suggests architectural advantages in certain algorithmic patterns.

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 is the better option for integer-heavy, data-movement-oriented tasks. Its 24.1% lead in integer math, 12.3% lead in data compression, and 11.1% lead in random string sorting indicate strength in database, file processing, and general productivity workloads. The 34.3% multi-core win in cinebench_r23 is the strongest argument for AMD in sustained all-core rendering scenarios.

The average benchmark scores place Intel at 23219 and AMD at 22289, a 4.2% gap. Intel's percentile ranking is 76 versus AMD's 75, nearly identical. The nearest rivals data confirms these are comparable parts: Intel sits within 0.3% of the Core i9-11900F and Ryzen 7 5800H, while AMD sits within 1.4% of the Ryzen 5 3600X and 0.9% of the Core i7-1270P.

For a user prioritizing single-thread speed, encryption, or scientific computing, the Intel part has clear evidence in its favor. For a user prioritizing multi-threaded throughput in Cinebench R23, integer processing, or compression work, the AMD part wins. The choice depends entirely on the workload profile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins passmark_single_thread at 4274 versus 3646, a 17.2% lead. It also wins cinebench_r15_singlecore by 37% and r20_singlecore by 8.6%. However, AMD wins cinebench_r23_singlecore by 10.9%, so the single-core result varies by benchmark version.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: Intel wins cinebench_r15_multicore by 1.3% and r20_multicore by 8.6%, plus passmark_multithread by 6.6%. AMD wins cinebench_r23_multicore by 34.3%, which is the largest multi-core margin in either direction.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: Intel has 8 cores and 8 threads, while AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads. AMD's simultaneous multithreading doubles its thread count, which likely contributes to its r23 multi-core win.

Q: Which CPU has more cache?

A: AMD has a larger shared L3 cache at 16 MB versus Intel's 12 MB. Intel has larger per-core L1 (192 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB versus 1 MB) caches.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: Intel supports LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus providing 136.5 GB/s. AMD supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus providing 89.6 GB/s. Intel's bandwidth is 52% higher.

Q: Which processor is more efficient on power?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 220 has a 28 W TDP, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has a 30 W TDP. The difference is 2 W, with AMD drawing slightly less power by specification.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V wins in 12 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. Its most significant victories are in prime number finding (200% lead), floating-point math (67.7% lead), physics (66.5% lead), single-thread passmark (17.2% lead), and data encryption (13.2% lead). These results point toward computational workloads: scientific simulation, mathematical modeling, physics engines, and security-related processing. The Cinebench r15 and r20 suites also favor Intel, covering both single-core and multi-core variants.

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 wins in 5 benchmarks. Its largest win is cinebench_r23_multicore at 34.3%, followed by integer math at 24.1%, data compression at 12.3%, random string sorting at 11.1%, and cinebench_r23_singlecore at 10.9%. These results cluster around integer processing, data movement, and sorting algorithms, suggesting strength in productivity software, database operations, file compression utilities, and general office workloads.

The split is clean: Intel dominates computational and floating-point tasks, AMD dominates integer and data-handling tasks. The r23 results are the outlier for Intel, showing a significant multi-core deficit that does not appear in r15 or r20, which warrants attention from anyone planning sustained all-core rendering work.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core Ultra 9 288V | AMD Ryzen 5 220 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 8 | 12 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 30 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2833 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Architecture | Lunar Lake | Zen 4 (Hawk Point) |

| Process node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 20,900 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 137 mm² |

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

| L2 cache | 2.5 MB per core | 1 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 12 MB shared | 16 MB shared |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 136.5 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

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

| Integrated graphics | Arc 140V | Radeon 740M |

| Release date | 2024-09-23 | 2025-01-05 |

| Part number | SRPMS... | 100-000001611 |

The two processors share several characteristics: both are mobile parts, both are actively produced, both use dual-channel memory buses, neither supports ECC memory, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The transistor and die size data for Intel is simply not present in the database, so no comparison is possible there.