AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in absolute terms?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 15 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It leads by margins ranging from 23.5% in PassMark single-thread to 74.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part uses no hyperthreading, while the AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 records 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 does not.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher process node rating?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses a 4 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. The AMD part belongs to the Ryzen 7 generation, and the Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. Process nodes differ: AMD uses 4 nm TSMC fabrication, Intel uses 3 nm TSMC fabrication. Transistor counts also differ substantially, with the AMD chip packing 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, versus 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die for Intel.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core caches on the Intel part align with its higher core count and desktop positioning.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the memory bandwidth differs, with Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD at 89.6 GB/s. The AMD part has a dual-channel memory bus; Intel also uses dual-channel. PCIe support differs: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with AMD using Radeon 780M and Intel using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Market segments are not aligned. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851. This explains the TDP difference: 45 W for AMD versus 65 W for Intel. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while Intel has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost clock of 5.60 GHz. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded benchmark. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests, where Intel scores 4881 versus AMD's 3736, a 23.5% advantage. This indicates that even in lightly threaded workloads, the Intel processor holds a clear edge.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. Intel scores 6909 against AMD's 1770.5, a 74.4% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern: 696 for Intel versus 276.5 for AMD, a 60.3% difference. These results confirm that the Intel architecture delivers substantially higher per-thread performance in the database's measurements.

Multi-core tests show even wider spreads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 48945 versus AMD's 17211.5, a 64.8% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core gives Intel 4933 against AMD's 2747.5, a 44.3% lead. The Intel processor also has a dedicated Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 20556 and single-core score of 2901, tests that the AMD processor does not have recorded.

PassMark workloads follow the same hierarchy. Data compression: Intel 602121 versus AMD 351517, a 41.6% lead. Data encryption: Intel 46949 versus AMD 20267, a 56.8% lead. Extended instructions: Intel 45357 versus AMD 26544, a 41.5% lead. Find prime numbers: Intel 459 versus AMD 77, an 83.2% lead, the largest gap in the entire comparison. Floating point math: Intel 194988 versus AMD 59462, a 69.5% lead. Integer math: Intel 164869 versus AMD 96737, a 41.3% lead. Multithread: Intel 56602 versus AMD 28078, a 50.4% lead. Physics: Intel 3598 versus AMD 1218, a 66.1% lead. Random string sorting: Intel 73651 versus AMD 42383, a 42.5% lead.

The database records 15 wins for Intel and zero for AMD. The average benchmark score reflects this: Intel sits at 75488, AMD at 43717. Percentile rankings place Intel at 95 versus AMD at 88.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 260 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| 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 bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 780M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $579 |

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 260 in every single benchmark included in the database. The Intel part carries a 95th percentile ranking versus 88th for AMD, and its average benchmark score of 75488 is roughly 73% higher than AMD's 43717.

The two processors target different segments. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is a mobile part with a 45 W TDP, 8 cores, and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP, 24 cores, and 24 threads. The Intel part also adds ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 5, while the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4. The Intel processor has a launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD processor has no recorded launch MSRP.

For workloads that depend on raw throughput, multi-core rendering, or heavy math, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice based on the numbers. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 does not win a single recorded comparison, so any selection between these two must favor Intel on performance. The only advantage the AMD part offers is its lower TDP, which suits mobile form factors, and its earlier release date by a few days.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in all measured categories. No benchmark in the database favors the AMD Ryzen 7 260. The Intel part dominates in single-thread tests, multi-thread tests, and every PassMark workload from compression to physics.

Looking at the margins, the Intel processor is especially strong in prime number finding (83.2% lead), single-core Cinebench R23 (74.4% lead), and floating point math (69.5% lead). It also leads by 50.4% in PassMark multithread and 56.8% in data encryption. These are not marginal differences; they represent a different performance class entirely.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 does have one structural advantage: power consumption. Its 45 W TDP is 20 W lower than Intel's 65 W TDP, which matters for mobile devices using the FP8 socket. The AMD part also uses a smaller die at 178 mm² versus 243 mm², and it carries more transistors. For scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint and the workload is light, the AMD processor can operate within its lower thermal envelope. However, in every recorded performance test, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers the higher score.