AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T scores 26,232 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 78.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 250's 14,676. This is the largest multi-core margin between the two in the head-to-head data.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T leads by a wide margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3,703 versus 1,715 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 115.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread results show a narrower 18% lead for Intel (4,339 vs 3,678).

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 7 250 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, it wins three of the fifteen head-to-head tests: PassMark data compression (300,708 vs 295,100, a 1.9% edge), PassMark integer math (91,565 vs 84,244, an 8% edge), and PassMark random string sorting (35,861 vs 35,377, a 1.3% edge).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has an average benchmark score of 38,561, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 averages 38,221. The difference is less than 1%, and both sit in the 86th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T boosts to 5.00 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, Intel wins the vast majority of benchmark comparisons.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 have locked multipliers, meaning neither is officially multiplier-unlocked.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T and AMD Ryzen 7 250 represent fundamentally different design approaches. Intel's chip is built on Arrow Lake-S architecture using a 3 nm process from TSMC, while AMD's Ryzen 7 250 uses Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm node under the Hawk Point codename.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Intel part packs 14 cores and 14 threads, whereas the AMD chip offers 8 cores and 16 threads. This means Intel has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, while AMD relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its higher thread count. The Intel chip's die size is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, compared to AMD's smaller 178 mm² die that holds 25,000 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. AMD counters with 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip's larger L3 cache could benefit workloads with high data reuse.

Both platforms support DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, but Intel's memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD. Neither supports ECC memory. The Intel chip uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while AMD uses PCIe Gen 4 with the same 20-lane count.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 24 execution units, while AMD pairs the Ryzen 7 250 with the Radeon 780M. The mobile AMD part has a 28 W TDP, whereas the desktop Intel chip has a 65 W TDP. Intel's chip fits Socket 1851, while AMD uses the FP8 socket for mobile platforms.

Process node advantages go to Intel at 3 nm, but AMD's denser transistor count on a slightly larger process suggests a different optimization focus. The Intel chip is a desktop part released on 2025-01-06, while the AMD is a mobile part released one day earlier on 2025-01-05.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes the choice relatively clear for performance-focused buyers. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins 12 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, often by substantial margins. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 26,232 is 78.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 250's 14,676, and its single-core lead in the same test is even more pronounced at 115.9%.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is the better pick only for workloads that specifically favor its strengths. It wins PassMark integer math by 8%, data compression by 1.9%, and random string sorting by 1.3%. These are narrow victories compared to Intel's dominant wins in floating-point math (100% ahead), prime number finding (335.6% ahead), and physics (88.1% ahead).

For desktop users seeking maximum compute performance, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is the clear winner based on the data. Its 14-core configuration and higher memory bandwidth translate to broad benchmark superiority. The AMD part, with its 28 W TDP and mobile socket, appears better suited to power-constrained or portable scenarios, though its performance deficits are significant.

Buyers should note that both processors sit in the 86th percentile of all CPUs and have average benchmark scores within 1% of each other overall. The Intel chip's launch MSRP is $247; AMD has no listed launch MSRP. Neither chip is multiplier-unlocked, so overclocking headroom is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 235T | AMD Ryzen 7 250 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 14 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Architecture | Arrow Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Arrow Lake-S | Hawk Point |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

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

| Die Size | 243 mm² | 178 mm² |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

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

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 24EU | Radeon 780M |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2025-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $247 | None listed |

| Part Number | SRQES | 100-000001722 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T's biggest wins come in compute-heavy synthetic tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 26,232 against AMD's 14,676, a 78.7% difference that reflects the Intel chip's additional physical cores. The single-core R23 test is even more lopsided: Intel's 3,703 beats AMD's 1,715 by 115.9%, suggesting a substantial per-core performance advantage that goes beyond core count.

PassMark floating-point math shows a 100% lead for Intel, with scores of 106,546 versus 53,285. This doubles the AMD result and indicates Intel's floating-point execution resources are significantly stronger. Prime number finding is Intel's most extreme victory: 318 versus 73, a 335.6% margin that points to a major difference in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads.

Multi-threaded PassMark scores favor Intel by 23.2% (30,918 vs 25,089), while physics tests show an 88.1% Intel advantage (2,157 vs 1,147). Data encryption also goes to Intel by 32.8% (23,457 vs 17,661), and extended instruction workloads favor Intel by 7.4% (23,212 vs 21,613). Cinebench R15 results are closer but still Intel-favored: 14.9% in multi-core (2,644 vs 2,302) and 38.7% in single-core (373 vs 269).

The AMD Ryzen 7 250's wins are concentrated in specific PassMark sub-tests. Integer math goes to AMD at 91,565 versus Intel's 84,244, an 8% advantage that shows AMD's integer units can outperform despite the overall core-count deficit. Data compression is a narrow 1.9% AMD win (300,708 vs 295,100), and random string sorting sees AMD edge ahead by 1.3% (35,861 vs 35,377). These victories suggest AMD's architecture handles certain data manipulation tasks efficiently, but they are isolated bright spots.

Overall, the head-to-head record stands at 12 wins for Intel and 3 for AMD. Intel's victories are typically large, while AMD's are marginal. The average benchmark scores differ by less than 1% (38,561 vs 38,221), which shows that the AMD chip's efficiency in specific tasks helps it stay competitive in the aggregate. However, for users prioritizing raw throughput in rendering, physics, or encryption workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is decisively stronger.