AMD Ryzen 7 170 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 7 170. The Intel processor’s largest advantage appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where it scores 459 against the AMD part’s 49, a delta of -89.3 percent for the Ryzen. This indicates a massive gap in pure integer workload performance, likely reflecting the difference in core count and architecture generation.

In passmark_data_compression, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 602,121 points versus 265,920 for the AMD Ryzen 7 170, a -55.8 percent delta. This workload benefits heavily from the Intel chip’s higher thread count and larger cache pool. The Ryzen 7 170’s 16 threads are outmatched by the Core Ultra 9 285’s 24 threads, and the data shows this in the multithread score as well: 56,602 versus 20,760, a -63.3 percent delta.

Floating-point math is another area where the Intel part runs away. The Core Ultra 9 285 scores 194,988 in passmark_floating_point_math, while the Ryzen 7 170 manages 44,979, a -76.9 percent delta. This is a 4.3x advantage in raw floating-point throughput, which is substantial for scientific and simulation workloads. The physics test shows a similar pattern: 3,598 for Intel versus 890 for AMD, a -75.3 percent delta.

Single-thread performance is the closest contest in the entire benchmark set, though Intel still wins clearly. The Core Ultra 9 285 posts 4,881 in passmark_single_thread, while the Ryzen 7 170 scores 3,128, a -35.9 percent delta. The Intel chip’s 5.60 GHz boost clock and Arrow Lake architecture deliver a significant per-core advantage over the Ryzen’s 4.75 GHz boost on Zen 3+.

Data encryption shows the Intel part at 46,949 versus 16,078 for AMD, a -65.8 percent delta. Extended instructions follow: 45,357 versus 18,107, a -60.1 percent delta. Random string sorting is another win for Intel: 73,651 versus 27,804, a -62.2 percent delta. Integer math rounds out the set: 164,869 versus 79,738, a -51.6 percent delta.

The Ryzen 7 170’s best relative showing is in integer math, where the delta narrows to -51.6 percent, and in single-thread, where it trails by only -35.9 percent. Still, the Intel part is ahead in every category by a margin that ranges from roughly one-third to nearly nine-tenths. The overall average benchmark score reflects this: 75,488 for the Core Ultra 9 285 versus 43,689 for the Ryzen 7 170.

The percentile data places the Intel chip at the 95th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the AMD part sits at the 88th percentile. This means the Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms 95 percent of recorded processors, whereas the Ryzen 7 170 outperforms 88 percent. The gap in percentile is smaller than the gap in raw scores, indicating that the Ryzen 7 170 is still a capable processor relative to the broader field, even if it cannot match the Intel flagship.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor in every benchmark category recorded. Its 24 cores, 24 threads, 36 MB shared L3 cache, and 5.60 GHz boost clock produce scores that dwarf the AMD Ryzen 7 170’s 8 cores, 16 threads, 16 MB shared L3 cache, and 4.75 GHz boost. The Intel part also uses a newer 3 nm process node from TSMC versus the 6 nm node on the AMD chip.

For users prioritizing maximum multithreaded throughput, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the obvious choice. Its passmark_multithread score of 56,602 is 2.7 times the Ryzen 7 170’s 20,760. For single-thread responsiveness, the Intel chip again leads by 1.56 times. The data shows no benchmark category where the Ryzen 7 170 closes the gap to within shouting distance.

However, the Ryzen 7 170 is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, while the Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP. The AMD chip’s lower thermal envelope and integrated Radeon 680M graphics make it suited for systems where power draw is constrained. The Intel chip’s Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, larger cache, and higher core count make it suited for desktop workloads that tolerate higher power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 170’s closest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745, AMD Ryzen 7 260, AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, all within 0.8 percent of its average score. The Core Ultra 9 285’s nearest rivals are server-class AMD EPYC parts and high-end Ryzen 7 PRO chips, all within 0.3 percent of its average. This positioning confirms that the Intel chip competes in a higher performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 170 uses the Zen 3+ architecture on the Rembrandt-R codename, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. The processor uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and it integrates Radeon 680M graphics. It is designed for the AMD Socket FP7 and targets the mobile market segment. The die size is 210 mm².

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on the Arrow Lake-S codename, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. The processor uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, and it integrates Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. It is designed for the Intel Socket 1851 and targets the desktop market segment. The die size is 243 mm², and the transistor count is 17,800 million.

The core count difference is stark: 24 versus 8. The Intel chip has three times the cores, though it does not use simultaneous multithreading, so it has 24 threads against the AMD chip’s 16 threads from 8 cores with SMT. The L3 cache difference is also notable: 36 MB versus 16 MB. The newer 3 nm node gives Intel a transistor density advantage, though the die is larger at 243 mm² versus 210 mm².

Memory bandwidth is another differentiator. The Intel part’s 102.4 GB/s exceeds the AMD part’s 76.8 GB/s by 33 percent. PCIe generation moves from Gen 4 on AMD to Gen 5 on Intel, doubling the per-lane bandwidth available for expansion devices. Both processors support ECC memory, which is rare for consumer parts and useful for workstation builds.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported according to the database. The Intel part’s launch MSRP is $579, while the AMD part has no recorded MSRP. The Ryzen 7 170 was released in late September 2025, while the Core Ultra 9 285 was released in late December 2024, so the Intel chip has been available longer in the market.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In passmark_single_thread, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881, while the AMD Ryzen 7 170 scores 3,128. The Intel part leads by 35.9 percent.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 170 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 boosts to 4.75 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every benchmark category in the database. Its largest margins come in find_prime_numbers (-89.3 percent delta), floating_point_math (-76.9 percent), physics (-75.3 percent), and data_encryption (-65.8 percent). These tests indicate strengths in raw integer computation, floating-point throughput, and physics simulation. The Intel part’s 24 cores and 36 MB L3 cache provide a massive parallel throughput advantage.

The AMD Ryzen 7 170 does not win a single head-to-head benchmark. Its closest relative performance appears in single-thread tests, where it trails by 35.9 percent, and in integer_math, where it trails by 51.6 percent. These are the two areas where the Ryzen’s Zen 3+ architecture and 4.75 GHz boost clock narrow the gap.

For users running heavily multithreaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D simulation, data compression, or encryption, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice based on the data. Its multithread score of 56,602 and data compression score of 602,121 are more than double the AMD part’s corresponding scores.

For users constrained by power consumption, the AMD Ryzen 7 170’s 35 W TDP versus the Intel part’s 65 W TDP is a meaningful difference, though the database does not include power efficiency benchmarks. The AMD part also targets the mobile socket FP7, while the Intel part targets desktop socket 1851, so they serve different physical platforms.

The Ryzen 7 170’s integrated Radeon 680M graphics may be sufficient for basic display output, while the Intel part’s Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU offers a different integrated GPU option. Neither processor is designed for gaming without a discrete GPU, based on the available data.

In terms of overall average benchmark score, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 75,488 against the Ryzen 7 170’s 43,689, a 72.8 percent advantage. The percentile ranking confirms this: 95th for Intel versus 88th for AMD. The data is unambiguous: the Core Ultra 9 285 is the higher-performing processor in every measured dimension.