AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 7 250. The margin is not uniform, however, and the distribution of deltas reveals where the architectural gap is largest and where the AMD part remains relatively competitive.

The largest single-core deficit for the AMD Ryzen 7 250 appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel part scores 6909 against 1715, a delta of -75.2%. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story: 696 for Intel versus 269 for AMD, a -61.4% gap. These results indicate that the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 holds a commanding lead in lightly threaded workloads, a pattern consistent with its higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz against the AMD's 5.10 GHz.

Multi-core performance follows the same direction but with varying intensity. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48945 versus 14676, a -70% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core run shows 4933 against 2302, a -53.3% difference. The PassMark multi-thread test records 56602 for Intel and 25089 for AMD, a -55.7% gap. These figures confirm that the Intel processor's 24 cores and 24 threads produce substantially higher aggregate throughput than the AMD's 8 cores and 16 threads.

The narrowest margin in the entire comparison appears in PassMark single-thread (and its duplicate single_thread entry), where Intel scores 4881 against AMD's 3678, a -24.6% delta. That is still a significant gap, but it is less than half the magnitude of the R23 single-core deficit. The PassMark integer math test shows a -44.5% delta (164869 versus 91565), the smallest multi-threaded gap recorded. This suggests that while the Intel part dominates, the AMD Ryzen 7 250's per-core integer throughput is comparatively closer to parity than its floating-point or prime-number performance.

The most extreme divergence occurs in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 459 against AMD's 73, a -84.1% delta. The PassMark floating point math test also shows a very large gap at -72.7% (194988 versus 53285). These two workloads, which are heavily dependent on sustained compute throughput, expose the largest performance chasm between the two processors.

Other notable deltas include PassMark data encryption at -62.4% (46949 versus 17661), PassMark physics at -68.1% (3598 versus 1147), PassMark extended instructions at -52.3% (45357 versus 21613), PassMark random string sorting at -51.3% (73651 versus 35861), and PassMark data compression at -50.1% (602121 versus 300708). In every case, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers more than double the AMD Ryzen 7 250's score, with the exception of single-thread where it delivers roughly one-third more.

Where Each One Wins

Given the 15-0 sweep, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every category represented in the benchmark suite. The database shows no benchmark where the AMD Ryzen 7 250 takes a lead. The wins for Intel are absolute, but the degree of dominance varies by workload type.

For single-thread and lightly threaded tasks, the Intel part wins by a factor of 1.3 to 4.0 depending on the test. The PassMark single-thread score of 4881 versus 3678 represents the closest competition, indicating that in everyday responsiveness and single-core applications, the AMD processor is not far behind. However, the Cinebench R23 single-core result (6909 versus 1715) shows that under sustained AVX or heavy single-core load, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 pulls far ahead.

For multi-threaded productivity, rendering, and compute-heavy workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins by factors ranging from 2.0 to 6.3. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 is 3.3 times the AMD's 14676. The PassMark floating point math score of 194988 is 3.7 times AMD's 53285. The PassMark find prime numbers result is 6.3 times higher. These are workloads where core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth dominate, and the Intel part has the advantage in all three.

For data compression and encryption, the Intel part wins with roughly 2.0 to 2.7 times the throughput. The PassMark data compression score of 602121 versus 300708 is exactly a 2.0x ratio, while data encryption at 46949 versus 17661 is a 2.7x ratio. These tasks benefit from the larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth of the Intel processor.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not win any of the 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score of 38221 places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285's average of 75488 places it in the 95th percentile. The nearest rival data for the AMD part shows it trading within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T and Intel Core i5-14490F, and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-13600HX, indicating that its performance class is closer to those mid-range parts than to the Core Ultra 9 285.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and target different market segments. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC and integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC and integrates 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel processor does not use hyper-threading, hence the equal core and thread counts, whereas the AMD processor doubles its threads through simultaneous multithreading. The base clock for AMD is 3.30 GHz and boost is 5.10 GHz. The Intel part has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a higher boost of 5.60 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2, combined with more than double the L3, gives the Intel part a substantial cache advantage for data-heavy workloads.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The AMD processor has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part reaches 102.4 GB/s. The Intel processor supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, offering double the per-lane bandwidth for compatible devices.

Integrated graphics are present on both. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses the Radeon 780M, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The TDP figures differ significantly: 28 watts for the AMD mobile part versus 65 watts for the Intel desktop part. This explains part of the performance gap, as the Intel processor has more than double the thermal budget.

The production status for both is Active. The AMD part was released on 2025-01-05, and the Intel part on 2024-12-31, making them near-contemporaneous in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel scores 459 versus the AMD's 73, a -84.1% difference for the AMD part.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Q: How do their cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB shared L3. The AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s, and the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 89.6 GB/s. Both use DDR5 dual-channel memory.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 does not.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75488, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has an average of 38221.

The Verdict

The data in the database is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 250 in every recorded benchmark, with deltas ranging from -24.6% in single-thread to -84.1% in prime number computation. The Intel part's 24 cores, larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and higher boost clock combine to deliver an average benchmark score of 75488, which is roughly double the AMD's 38221.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 should be considered for its intended mobile segment, where its 28-watt TDP and compact 178 mm² die make it suitable for power-constrained systems. Its nearest rivals in the database are mid-range Intel parts like the Core Ultra 5 245T and Core i5-13600HX, all within 0.2% of its average score. It does not compete in the same performance class as the Core Ultra 9 285.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, with its 65-watt TDP, 243 mm² die, and 95th percentile standing among all CPUs, is the clear choice for desktop workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput, heavy floating-point math, and large data compression or encryption tasks. Its nearest rivals are server-class AMD EPYC parts and Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 variants, all within 0.3% of its average score.

Users should select based on platform and power envelope. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 belongs in thin-and-light mobile systems. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 belongs in desktop builds where performance per socket is the priority. The benchmark record shows no crossover point where the AMD part gains an advantage.