AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single recorded test. Out of 11 head-to-head comparisons, Intel takes all 11, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U records zero wins. This is not a close contest by any measure.

The Intel part dominates in every category of PassMark testing. Its most lopsided advantage appears in prime number finding, where it scores 452 against AMD's 21, a 95.4% deficit for the Ryzen. Extended instruction workloads show a similar gap, with Intel at 42,880 versus AMD's 3,274, a 92.4% difference. Floating point math tells the same story: Intel's 159,824 dwarfs AMD's 12,707 by 92%.

The Intel processor also leads decisively in multithreaded throughput. Its PassMark multithread score of 50,146 compares to AMD's 7,071, a 85.9% gap. Data compression favors Intel at 553,155 versus 87,380, an 84.2% difference. Random string sorting shows Intel at 67,209 against AMD's 10,414, a 84.5% margin. Integer math follows with Intel at 123,030 versus 26,321, a 78.6% gap. Even the closest relative margin, single-thread performance, still shows Intel ahead by 54.5%, scoring 4,698 to AMD's 2,136.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. Intel's average of 66,159 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. AMD's average of 14,320 puts it in the 69th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (average score 65,914, a 0.4% difference) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66,855, a 1% difference). The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U sits near the Intel Core 7 160UL (14,232, a 0.6% difference) and the Intel Core i5-10400F (14,185, a 1% difference).

For use-case segmentation, the data indicates that the Intel processor handles multi-threaded workstation workloads, heavy data manipulation, and computationally intensive floating point tasks with a massive advantage. The AMD chip, by contrast, belongs to a much lower performance tier, suitable only for light mobile workloads where its 15W thermal envelope matters more than raw output.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies and manufacturing ecosystems. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U uses the Picasso codename, built on the Zen+ architecture, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, based on the Arrow Lake architecture.

Process technology separates them sharply. AMD uses a 12 nm node from GlobalFoundries, while Intel uses a 3 nm node from TSMC. Transistor counts differ by a factor of roughly 3.6: AMD integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while Intel packs 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. The density advantage of Intel's 3 nm process is evident in this comparison.

Core counts are drastically different. AMD offers 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Intel offers 18 cores and 18 threads, also without hyperthreading but with far more physical cores. This explains the massive multithreaded benchmark gap.

Cache hierarchies reflect the different design targets. AMD provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel L3 cache is 7.5 times larger than AMD's, a substantial advantage for workloads that benefit from large working sets.

Memory support differs by generation. AMD uses DDR4 with dual-channel access and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth, exactly three times the AMD figure. Intel also supports ECC memory, while AMD does not. PCIe connectivity favors Intel as well, with Gen 5 and 20 CPU lanes versus AMD's Gen 3.

Clock speeds set the two apart further. AMD's base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. Intel's base clock is 4.20 GHz with a boost of 5.30 GHz. The Intel base clock exceeds AMD's boost clock by 0.50 GHz.

Power and market positioning could not be more different. AMD sits at 15W TDP with a mobile market segment, while Intel sits at 125W TDP for desktop. AMD uses the FPGA socket, Intel uses Socket 1851. AMD integrates Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while Intel has no integrated graphics. AMD's multiplier is locked; Intel's is unlocked. The production status for both is Active, though Intel's release date of 2026-03-10 precedes AMD's 2026-05-31 by roughly two and a half months.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for Intel. Every head-to-head test lists Intel as the winner, with delta percentages representing AMD's deficit relative to Intel.

The largest gap is in prime number finding. Intel scores 452, AMD scores 21, a 95.4% difference. This test heavily favors wide-core-count processors, and the 18-core Intel design crushes the 4-core AMD design.

Extended instruction performance shows the second-largest margin at 92.4%. Intel's 42,880 versus AMD's 3,274 reflects both the core count advantage and the more modern instruction pipeline.

Floating point math comes next at 92%. Intel's 159,824 versus AMD's 12,707 indicates a 12.6x raw performance ratio. This test benefits from the larger SIMD units and higher clock speeds on the Intel part.

Data encryption shows an 86.5% gap, with Intel at 41,292 and AMD at 5,580. Multithreaded workloads follow at 85.9%, Intel at 50,146 and AMD at 7,071. Physics simulation shows an 84.8% gap, Intel at 3,183 and AMD at 483, a 6.6x ratio.

Data compression delivers an 84.2% gap, Intel at 553,155 and AMD at 87,380. Random string sorting shows an 84.5% gap, Intel at 67,209 and AMD at 10,414. Integer math closes the gap slightly at 78.6%, but Intel's 123,030 still dwarfs AMD's 26,321.

The closest contest is single-thread performance, where Intel's 4,698 leads AMD's 2,136 by 54.5%. This indicates that even on a per-thread basis, the Intel architecture holds a substantial clock-for-clock advantage. The base clock difference of 2.10 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, plus the boost difference of 3.70 GHz versus 5.30 GHz, largely explains this.

The average benchmark score gap is equally decisive. Intel's 66,159 is 4.6x AMD's 14,320. The percentile ranks reinforce this: Intel at 93, AMD at 69.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: Intel scores 4,698 in PassMark single-thread testing, while AMD scores 2,136, a 54.5% advantage for Intel.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus supports DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the multithreaded performance gap?

A: Intel scores 50,146 in PassMark multithread testing, while AMD scores 7,071, an 85.9% deficit for AMD.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm node from TSMC. AMD uses a 12 nm node from GlobalFoundries.

Q: Does the Intel processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is listed as true for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U does not support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 3501U | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Cores | 4 | 18 |

| Threads | 4 | 18 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 15W | 125W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Picasso | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process node | 12 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,940 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 210 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 96 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 512 KB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 4 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Vega 8 | N/A |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release date | 2026-05-31 | 2026-03-10 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $184 |

The specification table shows that the two processors target entirely different product categories. AMD's 15W TDP and mobile segment designation mark it as an ultra-low-power notebook chip. Intel's 125W TDP and desktop designation mark it as a high-performance desktop part. The launch MSRP of $184 for Intel appears once here for reference.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports one clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U in every measured benchmark category. There is no recorded test where the AMD chip wins, and the margins range from 54.5% to 95.4% in Intel's favor.

For users prioritizing raw computational throughput, the Intel part is the only choice from this comparison. Its 18-core design, 5.30 GHz boost clock, 30 MB L3 cache, and DDR5 memory support combine to deliver an average benchmark score of 66,159, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, both within 1% of its average score.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U, at 14,320 average score and 69th percentile, sits in a completely different performance class. Its nearest rivals, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546, AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, Intel Core 7 160UL, and Intel Core i5-10400F, all fall within 1% of its average. This places it among entry-level and embedded processors rather than high-end desktop parts.

The data does not support any scenario where the AMD chip matches the Intel chip in compute performance. The architecture gap, process node difference, core count disparity, and memory bandwidth differential all point in the same direction. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers approximately 4.6 times the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U.

The choice between these two parts depends entirely on the intended deployment context. The AMD chip consumes only 15W and includes integrated graphics, making it suitable for battery-powered mobile systems where power efficiency is the priority. The Intel chip requires 125W and lacks integrated graphics, demanding a discrete GPU, but it delivers desktop-class multithreaded performance that the AMD chip cannot approach. The benchmark records offer no ambiguity: for any workload measured in this database, the Intel part is the faster processor.