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

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy different segments of the processor market, one a 28-watt mobile part and the other a 65-watt desktop flagship. The recorded data shows a one-sided competitive landscape: the Intel processor wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the AMD chip trailing by margins ranging from 23.5% to 83%. This analysis breaks down the strengths of each processor based on the benchmark results, architectural details, and specification differences.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single test in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 17 victories. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U records zero wins. This does not mean the AMD processor lacks merit; rather, its strengths are defined by its mobile positioning rather than raw performance.

The Intel processor dominates in multi-threaded workloads, with its largest advantage appearing in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it leads by 83%. It also shows a massive 76.8% lead in floating point math, a 67.9% lead in physics, and a 66.3% lead in data encryption. These results indicate a processor built for heavy computational tasks, content creation, and scientific workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U, while losing every comparison, shows its closest performance in single-threaded integer workloads. The PassMark single thread test shows the Intel processor leading by only 23.5%, the smallest margin in the entire dataset. This suggests the AMD chip has respectable per-core efficiency for a 28-watt mobile processor, even if it cannot match the desktop part's raw throughput.

The AMD processor's actual competitive context comes from its nearest rivals, which include other mobile and older desktop parts. The database places it at the 81st percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 30254. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (score 30213, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 7736U (score 30364, delta -0.4%). These comparisons show the 8640U is competitive within its own performance class, even though it sits far below the Intel Core Ultra 9 285.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, using a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It contains 6 cores and 12 threads, a configuration that relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process node, also from TSMC. It contains 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading or any form of multithreading; each core handles one thread.

The transistor counts differ significantly. The AMD processor packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while the Intel processor contains 17,800 million transistors spread across a larger 243 mm² die. This reflects the different design goals: the AMD chip is a dense mobile part, while the Intel chip uses a larger die for a desktop platform.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip's larger cache allocations align with its higher core count and desktop performance targets.

Memory support shows both processors use DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses. The AMD chip has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel chip reaches 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, a feature more commonly associated with workstation or server use.

The PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The AMD processor uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel processor uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This gives the Intel chip a bandwidth advantage for connected devices, though both provide the same lane count.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD processor includes the Radeon 760M, while the Intel processor uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD chip's market segment is listed as Mobile, confirmed by its socket (AMD Socket FP7) and part numbers. The Intel chip is listed as Desktop, using Intel Socket 1851.

Clock speeds favor the Intel processor. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel part has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz. This higher boost capability contributes to its single-thread performance advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent Intel dominance across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel processor scores 4933 against the AMD's 2014, a 59.2% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same 59.2% margin, with Intel at 696 and AMD at 284. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the exact 59.2% delta, with Intel at 20556 and AMD at 8392. The single-core R20 test shows Intel at 2901 versus AMD's 1184. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern: Intel scores 48945 multi-core and 6909 single-core, while AMD scores 19982 and 2821 respectively. The uniform 59.2% delta across all Cinebench tests indicates a consistent performance ratio rather than workload-specific variance.

The PassMark suite reveals more varied margins. Data compression shows Intel at 602121 against AMD's 260925, a 56.7% lead. Data encryption shows a larger gap: Intel at 46949 versus AMD's 15843, a 66.3% lead. Extended instructions tests show Intel at 45357 versus AMD's 19130, a 57.8% margin. The find prime numbers test shows the widest gap in the entire dataset: Intel at 459 versus AMD's 78, an 83% lead.

Floating point math demonstrates significant Intel superiority, with Intel scoring 194988 against AMD's 45265, a 76.8% margin. Integer math shows a smaller but still substantial gap: Intel at 164869 versus AMD's 74875, a 54.6% lead. The multithread test shows Intel at 56602 against AMD's 22795, a 59.7% margin. Physics tests show Intel at 3598 versus AMD's 1154, a 67.9% lead.

Random string sorting shows Intel at 73651 versus AMD's 32114, a 56.4% margin. The single-thread tests show the closest competition: Intel at 4881 versus AMD's 3732, a 23.5% lead. This appears twice in the database under slightly different test names, confirming the result.

The average benchmark score tells the broader story. The AMD processor has an average score of 30254, placing it at the 81st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel processor has an average score of 75488, placing it at the 95th percentile. The Intel chip's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P (score 75582, delta -0.1%) and the AMD EPYC 4545P (score 75373, delta 0.2%), showing it sits among server-class processors in overall performance.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of purpose. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every measured benchmark, with margins that range from 23.5% in single-threaded work to 83% in prime number calculations. Its 95th percentile ranking and average score of 75488 place it in a performance class that includes server processors like the AMD EPYC 8224P and EPYC 4545P. This is a desktop processor for demanding multi-threaded workloads, content creation, and computation-heavy tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U, despite losing all comparisons, serves a different role. Its 81st percentile ranking and average score of 30254 place it alongside the AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (30213) and the Ryzen 7 7736U (30364). These are competitive positions for a 28-watt mobile processor. Its closest rival by average score, the Ryzen 7 2700X, is an older desktop part from a previous generation, and the 8640U stays within 0.6% of that score. This indicates the AMD chip delivers desktop-class performance from a mobile power envelope.

The choice comes down to platform and power. The Intel processor requires a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1851), a 65-watt TDP, and a 24-core, 24-thread design that trades multithreading for additional physical cores. The AMD processor uses a mobile socket (AMD Socket FP7), a 28-watt TDP, and a 6-core, 12-thread design that uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. For users with desktop workloads that scale across cores, the Intel chip is the clear choice based on the numbers. For mobile systems where power efficiency matters, the AMD chip provides competitive performance within its class, even if it cannot match the desktop part's output.

FAQ

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U records zero wins.

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

A: The largest margin is 83% in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel processor scores 459 and the AMD processor scores 78.

Q: What is the smallest performance margin between the two processors?

A: The smallest margin is 23.5% in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Intel processor scores 4881 and the AMD processor scores 3732.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has an average score of 30254.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640U's boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Specification Differences

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

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

| Series | 8000 series | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| 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 |

| 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 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001318(FP7r2), 100-000001378(FP7) | SRQD4 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 81st | 95th |

| Average Benchmark Score | 30254 | 75488 |