AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data paints a split picture, with the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F winning 9 of 17 benchmark comparisons and the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 winning 8. The most decisive victories, however, are heavily skewed toward one side depending on the workload type.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F dominates the Cinebench suite entirely. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD part wins with a consistent 9.6% delta. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD scores 21765 against Intel's 19856; in single-core, the AMD posts 3072 versus 2803. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in rendering and general CPU-bound tasks that scale with clock-for-clock efficiency.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 strikes back in PassMark's floating-point math test with a massive 39% advantage, scoring 75136 versus the AMD's 45799. This is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Intel also wins the PassMark single-thread test by 19.4% (4575 versus 3689), a curious inversion given AMD's Cinebench single-core lead. The PassMark physics test also goes to Intel by 17.7% (2016 versus 1660), and Intel leads in prime number finding by 28.7% (268 versus 191).

The AMD chip takes the PassMark integer math test by 36.5% (74745 versus 54755), its largest win of any kind. AMD also leads in data compression by 11.3% (289999 versus 260651) and random string sorting by 12.9% (35096 versus 31083). Intel counters in data encryption by 11% (18772 versus 16712) and extended instructions by 3.7% (22578 versus 21747).

The PassMark multithread result is nearly a dead heat: Intel wins by 2% (26167 versus 25645), yet AMD's wins in Cinebench multicore across three generations of the test suggest the AMD part has better sustained multicore throughput in render workloads, while Intel's multithread advantage appears tied to specific instruction patterns.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has an average benchmark score of 32750, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 averages 31473. The AMD part also sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs, one point above Intel's 82nd percentile.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The results are contradictory. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins all three Cinebench single-core tests by 9.6% (R15: 309 versus 282, R20: 1290 versus 1177, R23: 3072 versus 2803). However, the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins the PassMark single-thread test by 19.4% (4575 versus 3689). The Cinebench tests measure sustained single-core rendering, while PassMark's single-thread test appears to favor Intel's higher boost clock.

Q: What is the closest rival to each processor according to the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-14600T, which scores 32707 on average, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205's nearest rival is the Intel Core 7 240H, scoring 31483, a 0.0% difference.

Q: Which CPU has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 physical cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 6. However, the AMD part supports 12 threads through simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part has 8 threads with no hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F boosts to 4.70 GHz. The base clocks are closer: Intel at 3.80 GHz versus AMD at 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has a higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, compared to AMD's 83.2 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses Zen 4 architecture under the Raphael codename, part of the 7000 series. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) in the Core Ultra Series 2, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The Intel die is significantly larger, and the transistor count is nearly three times higher.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel part shows 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 15 MB of shared L3. The Intel design dedicates more cache per core but offers less aggregate L3. This cache arrangement likely contributes to Intel's strong floating-point and single-thread PassMark results, while AMD's larger shared L3 pool helps with integer-heavy and compression workloads.

The AMD processor includes ECC memory support, which the Intel part lacks. Both use PCIe Gen 5, but AMD provides 24 lanes (CPU only) versus Intel's 20 lanes. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 includes integrated graphics: Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU.

The AMD multiplier is unlocked, enabling overclocking, while the Intel multiplier is locked. The AMD part is an active production chip with part number 100-000001845, and the Intel part is also active with part number SRVFC. Release dates differ: the AMD launched on January 8, 2025, and the Intel launched on July 31, 2025.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads, Intel has 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close, with Intel at 3.80 GHz and AMD at 3.70 GHz. Boost clocks show Intel at 4.90 GHz versus AMD at 4.70 GHz. Thermal design power differs slightly: AMD is rated at 65 watts, Intel at 57 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket AM5, Intel uses Socket 1851. Process nodes differ by two generations: AMD is on 5 nm, Intel on 3 nm. Transistor counts are 6,570 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes are 71 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel.

Cache configurations differ across all levels. L1 is 64 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD versus 3 MB per core for Intel. L3 is 32 MB shared for AMD versus 15 MB shared for Intel. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 83.2 GB/s, though both are dual-channel DDR5. ECC support exists only on AMD. PCIe lanes are 24 for AMD and 20 for Intel. Integrated graphics exist only on Intel. The AMD multiplier is unlocked; the Intel multiplier is locked. The AMD launch MSRP is $229, and the Intel launch MSRP is $140.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F wins decisively in rendering and computational workloads that use the Cinebench suite. The 9.6% advantage across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore, indicates the Zen 4 architecture delivers stronger sustained performance in ray-traced and rasterized render tasks. AMD also dominates integer math with a 36.5% lead, data compression by 11.3%, and random string sorting by 12.9%, suggesting better throughput for database operations, file archiving, and general-purpose integer computation.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins in floating-point math by 39%, a substantial margin that indicates superior vector and scientific computing performance. The 19.4% PassMark single-thread lead, combined with the 28.7% prime number advantage and 17.7% physics test win, points to strong per-thread execution for certain algorithmic patterns. Intel also leads in data encryption by 11% and extended instructions by 3.7%, making it better suited for cryptography, hashing, and AVX-heavy workloads. The multithread PassMark win, albeit by only 2%, shows the 8 physical cores can outpace AMD's 6 cores with SMT in specific parallel tasks.

In raw core count, the Intel part has 8 physical cores versus AMD's 6, which helps in workloads that scale linearly with core count without benefiting from simultaneous multithreading. The higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.70 GHz contributes to Intel's wins in latency-sensitive single-thread tasks. AMD's larger L3 cache and ECC support make it more suitable for memory-intensive server-like workloads where data integrity matters.

The Verdict

The data indicates the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F is the stronger choice for Cinebench-style rendering, integer-heavy computation, and data compression tasks. Its 9.6% sweep across all six Cinebench tests, plus the 36.5% integer math lead, positions it as the better processor for 3D artists, video editors, and developers working with integer arithmetic. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking, and ECC memory support suits reliability-focused builds.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the better pick for floating-point performance, encryption, and single-thread PassMark workloads. The 39% floating-point math advantage and 19.4% single-thread lead make it attractive for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on vectorized math. The integrated Arc graphics provide a fallback display output without a discrete GPU, and the lower TDP of 57 watts versus 65 watts suggests better energy efficiency in the same workloads.

Users who need integrated graphics, a lower launch MSRP of $140, and a newer 3 nm process node may prefer the Intel Core Ultra 3 205. Users who prioritize rendering performance, integer throughput, overclocking, and ECC memory support should select the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F despite its higher $229 launch MSRP. The 83rd versus 82nd percentile ranking across all CPUs confirms the AMD part holds a marginal overall edge, but the choice ultimately depends on which workload class matters more: AMD's rendering and integer strengths or Intel's floating-point and single-thread capabilities.