AMD Ryzen 5 7400F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy opposite ends of the desktop processor spectrum. The data in the database shows a comprehensive performance gap, with the Intel part winning all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Ryzen 5 7400F, a 6-core Zen 4 part, and the Core Ultra 9 285, a 24-core Arrow Lake flagship, are separated by more than just core counts; their architectural philosophies and target workloads diverge sharply. This analysis explores the recorded measurements, architectural differences, and what the numbers imply for each processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unequivocal. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a dominant performance advantage across every recorded test. In the Cinebench suite, the gap is consistently around 55.5%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 48945 against the AMD's 21765, a delta of -55.5%. The single-core results tell the same story, with the Core Ultra 9 285 scoring 6909 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 3072 for the Ryzen 5 7400F, again a -55.5% difference. This consistency across multi-core and single-core tests indicates that the Intel processor's advantage is not limited to scaling with core count but also extends to raw per-thread performance.

The PassMark suite reveals an even wider chasm in specific workloads. The most significant delta is in floating-point math, where the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 194988 compared to the Ryzen 5 7400F's 45799, a massive -76.5% difference. This suggests a substantial advantage in workloads like scientific computing, financial modeling, or any task that relies heavily on FPU throughput. Data encryption also shows a large gap, with the Intel part scoring 46949 versus 16712, a -64.4% delta, indicating a major difference in cryptographic and security-related processing.

Other PassMark tests continue the trend. The Core Ultra 9 285 leads in find prime numbers by -58.4%, in multithread by -54.7%, and in integer math by -54.7%. Data compression shows a -51.8% delta, and extended instructions a -52.1% delta. The smallest, though still significant, gap is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Intel part leads by -24.4% (4881 vs 3689). This shows that even in a test that minimizes the impact of the Intel's higher core count, its architectural efficiency and higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz provide a clear edge over the AMD's 4.70 GHz boost.

The data confirms a complete sweep. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is faster in every single metric recorded, from the synthetic Cinebench render tests to the varied PassMark workload simulations. The Ryzen 5 7400F has no benchmark win in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with the Raphael codename. It features 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3 cache. The processor is built on a 71 mm² die containing 6,570 million transistors.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a more advanced 3 nm process, also from TSMC. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, which indicates a hybrid design without hyper-threading on the performance cores. The base clock is 2.50 GHz, but it boosts to 5.60 GHz. The cache configuration is different, with 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 36 MB L3 cache. The physical package is much larger, with a 243 mm² die containing 17,800 million transistors.

These architectural differences have direct consequences. The Intel part's larger L3 cache (36 MB vs 32 MB) and newer process node contribute to its higher single-thread performance. The significantly higher transistor count and die size reflect the much higher core count. The Core Ultra 9 285 also integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the Ryzen 5 7400F has no integrated graphics. Both support DDR5 memory, but the Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 102.4 GB/s against the AMD's 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and use dual-channel memory buses. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket AM5 with 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 1851 with 20 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part does not.

The Verdict

The data positions these processors for completely different users. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, with its 95th percentile ranking against all CPUs, is a high-end desktop part designed for maximum throughput. Its 24 cores and 36 MB of L3 cache, combined with the highest benchmark scores in the database comparison, make it the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads like 3D rendering, video encoding, and complex data analysis.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, ranking in the 83rd percentile, is a mainstream 6-core processor. While it cannot match the Intel part's performance, its 65 W TDP and active production status make it a more modest option. The data shows it is competitive with other mid-range parts like the Intel Core i5-14600T, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H, and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, as indicated by its nearest rivals list. Its average benchmark score of 32750 is very close to those parts, with delta percentages of around 0.1% to 0.3%. This suggests the Ryzen 5 7400F is positioned in a specific performance tier, and the Core Ultra 9 285 is in another entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6909 versus 3072 for the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, a -55.5% difference. In PassMark single-thread, the Intel part scores 4881 versus 3689, a -24.4% difference.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark floating-point math test. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 194988, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F scores 45799, resulting in a -76.5% difference.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the database records that both the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F does not have integrated graphics.

Q: What is the difference in their memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400F has a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. This makes its use case clear for any application where raw performance is the primary concern. The data shows it excels in multi-threaded tasks, as evidenced by its dominant Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945. Its advantage in PassMark data compression (602121 vs 289999) and data encryption (46949 vs 16712) points to strong performance in file archiving, database workloads, and security-related processing. The -76.5% lead in floating-point math suggests it is well-suited for scientific simulations and complex mathematical computations.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400F, while losing all direct comparisons, still has a defined role based on the data. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration and 65 W TDP are characteristics of a mainstream processor. Its average benchmark score of 32750 places it in a tier with other mid-range parts like the Intel Core i5-14600T and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850H. The recorded data indicates it is a competent desktop processor for general use, but it is not designed for the extreme multi-threaded workloads where the Core Ultra 9 285 operates. For users with lightly threaded applications, the difference is still significant, but the Intel part's 24.4% lead in single-thread tests is smaller than in other areas. The Ryzen 5 7400F's strengths lie in its platform (AMD Socket AM5) and its position within its own performance class, not in outperforming the higher-tier Intel part.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the database records.

• Manufacturer: AMD vs Intel
• Series: 7000 series vs Core Ultra Series 2
• Cores: 6 vs 24
• Threads: 12 vs 24
• Base Clock: 3.70 GHz vs 2.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.70 GHz vs 5.60 GHz
• Socket: AMD Socket AM5 vs Intel Socket 1851
• Architecture: Zen 4 vs Arrow Lake
• Codename: Raphael vs Arrow Lake-S
• Process Node: 5 nm vs 3 nm
• Foundry: TSMC (both)
• Transistors: 6,570 million vs 17,800 million
• Die Size: 71 mm² vs 243 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB (per core) vs 192 KB (per core)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB (per core) vs 3 MB (per core)
• L3 Cache: 32 MB (shared) vs 36 MB (shared)
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s vs 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 24 Lanes vs Gen 5, 20 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: N/A vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Release Date: 2025-01-08 vs 2024-12-31
• Launch MSRP: $229 vs $579
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes vs No
• Part Number: 100-000001845 vs SRQD4
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 83 vs 95
• Average Benchmark Score: 32750 vs 75488