AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F records an average benchmark score of 25,005, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records 75,488. The Intel part holds a 95th percentile rank among all CPUs, compared to the AMD part's 77th percentile.

Q: Which chip wins in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 versus 20,851 for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F. The database reports a delta of -57.4% for the AMD chip, meaning the Intel part leads by roughly 135% in this workload.

Q: What is the single-thread performance gap between the two?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881 against 3,685 for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, a delta of -24.5%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap: 6,909 versus 2,943, a -57.4% delta.

Q: Does the AMD processor have any benchmark wins over the Intel processor?

A: No. Across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every test. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F records zero wins in this matchup.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each CPU in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with an average score of 24,964, just 0.2% behind. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582, which trails by 0.1%.

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR5. However, memory bandwidth differs: the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F delivers 83.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 102.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design families. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on TSMC's 3 nm node. Both use TSMC as the foundry, but the process node shrinks from 4 nm to 3 nm for the Intel part.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal different design approaches. The AMD chip packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors across a 243 mm² die. The Intel die is larger, but the AMD die holds more transistors in less space.

Core configuration differs sharply. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, with no multithreading on its cores. The AMD part's base clock sits at 4.20 GHz with a 4.70 GHz boost, while the Intel part runs a 2.50 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies follow different patterns. The AMD chip allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. That gives the Intel part more than double the L3 capacity.

Memory bandwidth favors the Intel part at 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the AMD chip. The AMD processor does not support ECC memory, while the Intel processor does. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, and the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The AMD part is multiplier-unlocked, while the Intel part is not. Both target the desktop market segment and remain in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17. The closest contest appears in PassMark single-thread testing, where the Intel part scores 4,881 against 3,685, a -24.5% delta for the AMD chip. This represents the smallest relative gap in the entire set.

Cinebench results show consistent multi-core dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 4,933 versus 2,101, a -57.4% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20,556 versus 8,757, also -57.4%. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 48,945 versus 20,851, again -57.4%. The pattern holds across every Cinebench multi-core generation tested.

Single-core Cinebench results mirror the multi-core trend. Cinebench R15 single-core records 696 versus 296, a -57.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 1,236, -57.4%. Cinebench R23 single-core delivers 6,909 versus 2,943, -57.4%. The Intel part roughly doubles the AMD chip in every single-core Cinebench test.

PassMark workloads reveal where the gap widens or narrows. The largest delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel part scores 459 versus 89, a -80.6% delta. PassMark floating point math shows 194,988 versus 46,217, a -76.3% delta. PassMark data encryption records 46,949 versus 16,646, a -64.5% delta. PassMark physics delivers 3,598 versus 1,332, a -63% delta.

Other PassMark tests fall in a tighter range. PassMark multi-thread shows 56,602 versus 24,389, a -56.9% delta. PassMark integer math delivers 164,869 versus 74,021, a -55.1% delta. PassMark random string sorting records 73,651 versus 34,604, a -53% delta. PassMark data compression shows 602,121 versus 288,158, a -52.1% delta. PassMark extended instructions delivers 45,357 versus 22,175, a -51.1% delta.

The data indicates a consistent performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 leads by roughly double in most tests, with the smallest edge in PassMark single-thread and the largest edges in prime number finding and floating point math.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks sit at 4.20 GHz for the AMD part and 2.50 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks reach 4.70 GHz on the AMD chip and 5.60 GHz on the Intel chip.

Socket compatibility separates the platforms entirely. The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part belongs to the 8000 series with a Ryzen 5 generation label of Zen 4 (Phoenix). The Intel part belongs to Core Ultra Series 2 with an Ultra 9 generation label of Arrow Lake.

Process technology differs by one node step. The AMD chip uses 4 nm TSMC fabrication, and the Intel chip uses 3 nm TSMC fabrication. Transistor counts run 25,000 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes measure 178 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel.

Cache specifications vary by level. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. Neither chip uses 3D V-Cache.

Memory support differs in bandwidth and ECC capability. AMD delivers 83.2 GB/s with no ECC support. Intel delivers 102.4 GB/s with ECC support. Both use dual-channel DDR5 memory buses.

PCIe generation separates the two. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the Intel part, which has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU; the AMD part has none.

Other differences include unlock status and release timing. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does not. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F released on 2024-03-31, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 released on 2024-12-31. The AMD launch MSRP was $170, and the Intel launch MSRP was $579. Part numbers are 100-000001591 for AMD and SRQD4 for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates this comparison across every recorded benchmark. The database shows zero wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F in the 17 head-to-head tests. Any workload selection from the measured set favors the Intel part.

Multi-threaded rendering and simulation workloads strongly favor the Intel chip. Cinebench R23 multi-core scores of 48,945 versus 20,851 show a 57.4% delta in favor of Intel. The 24-core configuration with 24 threads provides the throughput advantage in heavily parallel tasks. PassMark multi-thread results follow the same pattern at 56,602 versus 24,389.

Single-thread performance also favors the Intel part, though by a smaller margin in some tests. PassMark single-thread shows 4,881 versus 3,685, a 24.5% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a wider 57.4% gap at 6,909 versus 2,943. The Intel boost clock of 5.60 GHz contributes to this advantage.

Math-intensive workloads show the largest gaps. PassMark find prime numbers delivers 459 versus 89, an 80.6% delta. PassMark floating point math records 194,988 versus 46,217, a 76.3% delta. These tests highlight the Intel part's floating point and integer throughput capabilities.

Encryption and compression workloads also land firmly in Intel territory. PassMark data encryption shows 46,949 versus 16,646, a 64.5% delta. PassMark data compression delivers 602,121 versus 288,158, a 52.1% delta. The Intel L3 cache of 36 MB and higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s support these data-heavy tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F does not win any measured workload, but its profile suggests certain relative strengths. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F, sits only 0.2% behind in average score, indicating the 8400F competes effectively within its own performance class. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 4.70 GHz boost clock remains a capable desktop part, and its 65 W TDP matches the Intel part's 65 W TDP. The AMD chip also offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a feature the Intel part lacks.

The percentile ranks summarize the class difference. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F sits at the 77th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include server-class AMD EPYC processors, while the AMD part's nearest rivals include mid-range Intel mobile and desktop chips. These positioning details confirm that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 operates in a higher performance tier, with the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F positioned as a more modest desktop offering.