AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data paints a stark picture: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS. No benchmark in the database favors the AMD part. The largest margin appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 459 against AMD's 71, a delta of -84.5%. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread performance, where Intel leads by 27% with 4,881 points versus 3,561.

Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 4,933 versus AMD's 1,824, a -63% delta. The single-core R15 test shows a nearly identical margin at -63.1%, with Intel at 696 and AMD at 257. Cinebench R20 multicore delivers 20,556 for Intel and 7,603 for AMD (-63%), while the single-core result is 2,901 against 1,073 (-63%). Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the exact -63% delta: Intel at 48,945, AMD at 18,104. The R23 single-core test also lands at -63%, with scores of 6,909 and 2,555.

PassMark's workload suite reinforces the same hierarchy. Data compression shows Intel at 602,121 versus AMD's 246,446, a -59.1% gap. Data encryption favors Intel 46,949 to 14,962, a -68.1% delta. Extended instructions score 45,357 for Intel and 18,507 for AMD (-59.2%). Floating point math is heavily one-sided: 194,988 for Intel against 43,019 for AMD, a -77.9% difference. Integer math shows a -57.6% gap (164,869 versus 69,839). Multithread performance delivers 56,602 versus 21,465, a -62.1% delta. Physics simulation scores 3,598 versus 1,043, a -71% gap. Random string sorting favors Intel 73,651 to 30,235, a -58.9% difference.

The average benchmark score in the database confirms the overall positioning. Intel's average sits at 75,488, while AMD's average is 28,478. Intel's percentile rank among all CPUs is 95, compared to AMD's 80. Intel's nearest rivals in the database are AMD EPYC server parts (8224P at 75,582 with a -0.1% delta, 4545P at 75,373 with a 0.2% delta) and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO parts (9755X3D at 75,716 with -0.3%, 9755 at 75,738 with -0.3%). AMD's nearest rivals include Intel Xeon E-2436 (28,530, -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS (28,549, -0.2%), Intel Core 5 220H (28,574, -0.3%), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U (28,379, 0.3%). These rival clusters show that each processor competes in a completely different performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. AMD's Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. Intel's Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake (Arrow Lake-S for desktop), built on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The transistor counts differ substantially: AMD packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while Intel fits 17,800 million into a larger 243 mm² die.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part has 24 cores and 24 threads, which means it does not use Hyper-Threading on any of its cores. Base clocks favor AMD at 3.50 GHz versus Intel's 2.50 GHz, but boost clocks reverse the order: Intel reaches 5.60 GHz, AMD tops out at 4.90 GHz.

Cache hierarchies scale with core count. AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches on Intel reflect its newer design and higher core count.

Both platforms support DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs by generation: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are also distinct: AMD uses Radeon 760M, Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Market positioning separates the two clearly. AMD's part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP7, with a 28 W TDP. Intel's part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, with a 65 W TDP. AMD released on 2024-04-15; Intel followed on 2024-12-31. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. Intel carries a launch MSRP of $579. AMD's part numbers are 100-000001354 (FP7r2) and 100-000001382 (FP7); Intel's part number is SRQD4.

The process node difference (4 nm versus 3 nm) explains part of the efficiency gap, but the core count difference (6 versus 24) dominates the performance delta. The AMD chip is designed for power-constrained mobile systems; the Intel chip targets desktop workloads where higher TDP and cooling headroom are acceptable.

Where Each One Wins

The data records zero benchmark wins for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS across all 17 head-to-head tests. Every recorded test, from Cinebench R15 through PassMark's specialized workloads, favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. This does not mean the AMD part has no use cases; it means the database's measured tests do not capture any workload where AMD comes out ahead.

The Intel chip wins on every metric the database tracks. Single-thread performance, multithread performance, integer math, floating point math, data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, physics simulation, and random string sorting all show Intel ahead. The smallest Intel margin is 27% in single-thread tests, which still represents a decisive lead. The largest margin, 84.5% in prime number finding, suggests Intel's architecture handles that particular workload exceptionally well compared to AMD's Zen 4 design.

For workload segmentation, the Intel part dominates both lightly threaded and heavily threaded scenarios. The single-thread PassMark score of 4,881 versus 3,561 indicates faster responsiveness in everyday tasks that rely on one or two cores. The multithread score of 56,602 versus 21,465 indicates a massive advantage in rendering, compilation, and other parallel workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore gap (-63%) reinforces that position.

The AMD part's value lies outside the measured benchmarks. As a 28 W mobile processor, it fits into thin-and-light laptops where the 65 W desktop Intel part cannot operate. The database records no thermal or power efficiency benchmarks, so no direct efficiency comparison is possible. The AMD chip supports ECC memory and uses a Gen 4 PCIe interface, which may suit certain embedded or workstation-mobile use cases. But within the recorded benchmark data, Intel wins every comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has an average of 28,478. Intel's score is roughly 2.65 times higher.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, Intel scores 4,881 versus AMD's 3,561, a delta of -27%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger gap: Intel at 6,909 versus AMD at 2,555, a delta of -63%.

Q: Do the two processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses TSMC's 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses TSMC's 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, which means it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports faster PCIe?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is each processor's market segment?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP. Intel has a launch MSRP of $579.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports only one conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is categorically faster than the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS in every recorded test. The Intel part delivers a -63% delta advantage across all Cinebench tests, a -27% advantage in PassMark single-thread, and advantages ranging from -57.6% to -84.5% across PassMark's specialized workloads. Its 95th percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 80th percentile quantifies the gap: these chips occupy different performance strata.

The AMD part's case rests entirely on its mobile design. It draws 28 W, uses a smaller 178 mm² die, and fits AMD Socket FP7 mobile platforms. The Intel part requires a desktop socket (1851) and consumes 65 W. Anyone choosing between these two processors is not choosing between two similar products; they are choosing between a mobile efficiency part and a desktop performance part. The data does not record any mobile-specific metrics such as battery life, thermal throttling, or power efficiency under load, so those comparisons cannot be made here.

For a desktop system where performance is the only criterion, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every measurable category. For a mobile system where the 28 W TDP and FP7 socket are required, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is the only option of the two that fits the platform. The database's benchmark results do not show any scenario where the AMD chip outperforms Intel, but they also do not measure the constraints that make the AMD part viable in its intended market segment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Series | 8000 series | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Cores | 6 | 24 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Ryzen 5 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | Active |

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $579 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001354 (FP7r2), 100-000001382 (FP7) | SRQD4 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 80 | 95 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 28,478 | 75,488 |