AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two processors along fairly distinct lines. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 takes 5 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T takes 10. Wins for the AMD part cluster around integer-heavy and data-processing workloads. The Intel part dominates in floating-point math, physics simulation, prime-number searches, and most single-threaded tests.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 shows its best results in PassMark integer math, where it scores 91,565 against 59,543 for the Intel chip, a 53.8% lead. Data compression also favors the AMD part, with a score of 300,708 versus 233,998, a 28.5% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 24.6%, and extended instructions land 7.6% in AMD's favor. These are workload types that often rely on high memory bandwidth per thread or efficient instruction dispatch, and the data indicates the Zen 4 mobile chip handles them with clear separation.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T, by contrast, wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test decisively, 21,971 versus 14,676, a 33.2% margin. The single-core gap is even larger in percentage terms, 3,101 versus 1,715 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 44.7% difference. PassMark floating-point math goes to Intel at 82,751 versus 53,285, a 35.6% lead. Prime-number finding is overwhelmingly Intel's, 284 versus 73, a 74.3% gap. Physics simulation also favors Intel, 2,053 versus 1,147, a 44.1% margin.

The division is not perfectly clean. The Intel part wins PassMark multithread, but only by 1.1%, 25,358 versus 25,089. Data encryption goes to Intel by a slim 3.4%, 18,289 versus 17,661. Single-thread performance in PassMark favors Intel by 15.4%, 4,348 versus 3,678. The overall pattern suggests AMD holds an edge in specific throughput-oriented integer tasks, while Intel holds broader advantages across rendering, floating-point, and physics workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 10 cores and 10 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads, while the Intel part does not.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 21,971 against 14,676 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 33.2% lead.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T scores 3,101 versus 1,715 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 44.7% difference. PassMark single-thread also favors Intel, 4,348 versus 3,678, a 15.4% gap.

Q: Where does the AMD Ryzen 7 250 show its largest advantage?

A: The largest AMD win is in PassMark integer math, 91,565 versus 59,543, a 53.8% lead. Data compression is next at 28.5%, followed by random string sorting at 24.6%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has an average benchmark score of 38,221, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T averages 30,468. The AMD part sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, the Intel part at the 82nd.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a split that is not simply about core count or clock speed. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins Cinebench R15 multicore, 2,302 versus 2,214, a 4% margin. That is a modest win in an older rendering benchmark, but the same benchmark's single-core test goes to Intel by 13.8%, 312 versus 269. The newer Cinebench R23 flips the multicore result decisively: Intel wins 21,971 versus 14,676, a 33.2% margin. This inconsistency between R15 and R23 multicore suggests the Intel part scales better with the longer, more demanding R23 workload, while the AMD part holds up better in the shorter R15 test.

The single-core Cinebench R23 gap is the largest single-core difference in the entire data set. Intel's 3,101 beats AMD's 1,715 by 44.7%. That is a substantial per-thread advantage, one that appears again in PassMark single-thread, though at a smaller 15.4% margin. The difference between these two single-thread measurements may reflect different instruction mixes or different boost behavior under load.

PassMark integer math is the AMD part's strongest statement. The 53.8% lead, 91,565 versus 59,543, is the largest margin in either direction across all tests. Data compression follows at 28.5%, and random string sorting at 24.6%. These three wins share a common theme: they involve manipulating large blocks of data in memory, where the AMD part's design appears to excel.

Intel's counterattack comes in floating-point math, where the 35.6% lead, 82,751 versus 53,285, is substantial. Prime-number finding is even more lopsided, 284 versus 73, a 74.3% gap that is the largest margin in the entire comparison. Physics simulation also favors Intel, 44.1% ahead. The Intel part wins PassMark multithread, but only by 1.1%, which is nearly a tie. Data encryption goes to Intel by 3.4%, another narrow margin.

The overall pattern in the head-to-head data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is faster in most tests, but the AMD Ryzen 7 250 is not simply slower across the board. It holds clear, sometimes large, advantages in integer math, compression, and string sorting. The Intel part wins the rendering and floating-point categories by wide margins, which accounts for its majority of wins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses 10 cores and 10 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Despite having fewer cores, the AMD part boosts slightly higher.

Thermal design power differs sharply. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is rated at 28 W TDP, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T at 65 W TDP. This is a meaningful difference in power envelope, though the benchmark data does not include power consumption measurements. The AMD part targets the mobile segment and uses AMD Socket FP8. The Intel part targets the desktop segment and uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The memory bandwidth figures differ: the AMD part lists 89.6 GB/s, the Intel part lists 102.4 GB/s. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe support differs by generation and lane count: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses Radeon 780M. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has a listed part number of 100-000001722, while the Intel part's part number is unknown. The AMD release date is 2025-01-05, and the Intel release date is 2024-12-31.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, and uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is built on Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, and uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The process node difference is one step, but the architectural approaches diverge considerably.

Transistor counts and die sizes tell part of the story. The AMD part has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD part packs more transistors into a smaller area, consistent with a denser mobile-oriented design. The Intel part uses a larger die with fewer transistors, reflecting a different physical layout and possibly different IP blocks.

Cache hierarchies differ across all levels. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has more cache per core and more total L3, which may contribute to its strong performance in floating-point and physics workloads.

The market segments differ, and this shows in the specifications. The AMD part is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP and an FP8 socket. The Intel part is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP and an LGA 1851 socket. The Intel part belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, while the AMD part is simply listed as Ryzen 7 with Zen 4 Hawk Point generation. Both are currently active production parts.

The benchmark data does not isolate which architectural differences cause which performance patterns. However, the combination of a 3 nm node, larger cache, and higher TDP in the Intel part correlates with its strong single-core and floating-point results. The AMD part's smaller node, higher transistor density, and SMT support correlate with its integer and compression wins.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the faster processor in the majority of recorded benchmarks. It wins 10 of 15 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench R23 tests, floating-point math, physics, and prime-number finding. Its single-core advantage is pronounced, 44.7% in Cinebench R23 and 15.4% in PassMark. Its multicore win in Cinebench R23, 33.2%, is also substantial. The data supports choosing the Intel part for rendering, physics simulation, and any workload that depends heavily on single-thread performance.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins 5 of 15 tests, but its wins are concentrated in areas where its margins are large. Integer math shows a 53.8% lead, data compression a 28.5% lead, and random string sorting a 24.6% lead. These are not marginal victories. For workloads that involve integer-heavy data manipulation, the AMD part is clearly ahead. It also wins Cinebench R15 multicore, though by only 4%.

The average benchmark scores favor the AMD part overall, 38,221 versus 30,468, and the AMD part sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs versus the 82nd for Intel. This is an interesting split: the AMD part has the higher average score and the higher percentile, but the Intel part wins most individual tests. The explanation lies in the magnitude of wins. Intel's losses in integer math and compression are large, but its wins in floating-point, physics, and prime-number tests are also large, and it wins more tests overall.

The power envelope difference is notable. The AMD part runs at 28 W TDP versus 65 W for the Intel part, yet it still manages to win integer-heavy workloads and match within 1.1% on PassMark multithread. The Intel part uses more than twice the TDP budget, and the data shows it delivers strong single-core and floating-point results with that budget. For systems where power draw is a constraint, the AMD part's wins at a lower TDP are relevant. For systems where peak performance in rendering or physics is the priority, the Intel part's results justify its higher TDP.

The cache and memory differences align with the performance split. The Intel part has 20 MB of shared L3 versus 16 MB for AMD, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 89.6 GB/s. Larger caches and higher bandwidth correlate with the Intel part's floating-point and physics wins. The AMD part's higher boost clock, 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, and its SMT-enabled 16 threads may help explain its integer and compression advantages.

The choice between these two processors depends on workload type, not on a single overall winner. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T is the pick for rendering, physics, and single-threaded tasks. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is the pick for integer math, compression, and data sorting. The data does not support a universal recommendation for one over the other.