AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear overall picture, but the details reveal a complex split. AMD Ryzen 7 8700F takes 14 of the 19 recorded benchmark wins, with Intel Core Ultra 5 225H winning 5. The most dramatic margin in the entire comparison is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the AMD chip scores 26646 against Intel's 14629.5, a 45.1% deficit for the Intel part. That is the largest raw performance gap recorded in any test.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Ryzen 7 8700F posts 3761 versus 1969 for the Core Ultra 5 225H, a 47.6% lead. The pattern holds across generations of the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, AMD wins 378 to 288.5, a 23.7% gap. Cinebench R20 singlecore shows AMD ahead 1579 to 1417, a 10.3% margin. In every Cinebench test, both single and multicore, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the faster processor.

Geekbench follows the same direction. The AMD part wins multicore with 13523 against 11526, a 14.8% lead, and singlecore with 2290 against 2151, a 6.1% margin. These are solid but not overwhelming advantages, indicating the Intel part is closer in general-purpose integer workloads than in rendering-style loads.

PassMark results break evenly into two groups. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins data compression 378160 to 283451, a 25% lead. It also wins data encryption 22117 to 21428, though by only 3.1%. Extended instructions go to AMD at 28474 versus 21915, a 23% gap. Integer math is a strong AMD win at 100371 versus 68520, a 31.7% margin. Multithreaded PassMark goes to AMD 30893 to 28119, a 9% lead, and random string sorting goes to AMD 45425 to 33654, a 25.9% edge.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins are concentrated in specific workloads. The largest Intel win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 220 against 98 for AMD, a 124.5% advantage. Floating point math also favors Intel, 86540 to 62629, a 38.2% lead. PassMark physics goes to Intel 1877 to 1553, a 20.9% margin. In PassMark single thread, Intel wins 4258 to 3872, a 10% edge. The same score appears twice in the data for Intel's single-threaded result, suggesting consistency in that measurement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and market segments. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H is a mobile part built on Arrow Lake-H, part of Core Ultra Series 2. It uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop part in the 8000 series, based on Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process from TSMC.

Core counts differ substantially. The Intel chip has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads, using simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. Despite having fewer physical cores, the AMD part has more threads available to the operating system.

Clock speeds favor AMD in both base and boost. The Ryzen 7 8700F has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel part relies on a much lower base clock, typical of mobile processors designed for power efficiency.

Cache layouts diverge as well. Intel uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel has a larger L3 cache overall, but the AMD design allocates more cache per thread when accounting for its higher thread count.

Power and platform differ sharply. The Intel part has a TDP of 28 watts and uses Intel BGA 2049, a soldered mobile socket. The AMD part has a TDP of 65 watts and uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop platform. Memory support shows Intel accepting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while AMD lists DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Intel records memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe connectivity differs. Intel provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes for CPU only. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes for CPU only. The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator: Intel includes Arc Graphics 130T, while AMD lists N/A, meaning no integrated graphics.

The AMD chip has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel chip has no transistor or die size data recorded. AMD marks its multiplier as unlocked, Intel marks its multiplier as locked. The AMD part carries a launch MSRP of $270.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the clear choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads. It wins all six Cinebench tests, with multicore advantages ranging from 10.3% in R20 to 45.1% in R23. The R23 multicore result is especially notable because that benchmark is widely used as a proxy for sustained multithreaded performance in rendering, video encoding, and similar tasks.

For integer-heavy computation, AMD also dominates. PassMark integer math goes to AMD by 31.7%. Data compression favors AMD by 25%. Extended instructions favor AMD by 23%. Random string sorting favors AMD by 25.9%. These workloads represent typical productivity tasks, database operations, and general code execution.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins in prime number finding by a massive 124.5%, indicating an advantage in workloads that stress branch prediction and certain ALU operations. Floating point math favors Intel by 38.2%, which is a notable win for scientific and engineering calculations that rely on floating point throughput. PassMark physics favors Intel by 20.9%, suggesting an edge in physics simulation. Intel also wins PassMark single thread by 10%, which is interesting because the AMD part wins Geekbench singlecore and all Cinebench singlecore tests.

The overall benchmark averages show the two chips are close. Intel has an average benchmark score of 31508 against 30746 for AMD. Both sit at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Intel's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-13500 with a delta of 0%, while AMD's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS with a delta of -0.4%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins 14 of the 19 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H wins 5.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 26646 against 14629.5 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H, a 45.1% difference. In the other direction, Intel leads PassMark find prime numbers by 124.5%, scoring 220 versus 98.

Q: Does the Intel processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H includes Arc Graphics 130T. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F lists N/A for integrated graphics.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has 14 cores and 14 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has an average benchmark score of 31508, and the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has an average of 30746. Both are at the 82nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the stronger processor for multithreaded rendering, integer math, compression, encryption, and general productivity. Its Cinebench R23 multicore result of 26646 versus 14629.5 for Intel is the defining statistic of this comparison. Anyone prioritizing rendering performance or heavily threaded workloads should choose the AMD part based on the recorded benchmark results.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H should be selected for workloads that match its specific strengths. Prime number finding at 124.5% ahead, floating point math at 38.2% ahead, and physics simulation at 20.9% ahead are meaningful advantages. The Intel chip also wins PassMark single thread by 10%, which matters for lightly threaded responsiveness in certain applications.

The platform context matters. The Intel part is mobile with a 28 watt TDP, soldered to Intel BGA 2049, and includes integrated graphics. The AMD part is desktop with a 65 watt TDP, uses Socket AM5, has no integrated graphics, and features an unlocked multiplier. These are not interchangeable products. The desktop AMD chip with a 5.00 GHz boost clock is built for performance, while the mobile Intel chip with a 1.70 GHz base clock and 28 watt TDP is built for power-constrained environments.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 31508 for Intel and 30746 for AMD, and both occupy the 82nd percentile. The choice comes down to workload profile and platform requirements rather than overall class superiority.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category recorded in the database.

Cores and threads: Intel has 14 cores and 14 threads. AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Clock speeds: Intel base clock is 1.70 GHz, boost clock is 4.90 GHz. AMD base clock is 4.10 GHz, boost clock is 5.00 GHz.

TDP: Intel is rated at 28 watts. AMD is rated at 65 watts.

Socket: Intel uses Intel BGA 2049. AMD uses AMD Socket AM5.

Architecture and process: Intel uses Arrow Lake-H on a 3 nm TSMC node. AMD uses Zen 4 Phoenix on a 4 nm TSMC node.

Cache: Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 18 MB shared L3. AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 16 MB shared L3.

Memory: Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel buses.

PCIe: Intel provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes for CPU only. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes for CPU only.

Integrated graphics: Intel includes Arc Graphics 130T. AMD lists N/A.

Transistors and die: AMD has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Intel has no recorded transistor or die data.

Multiplier: Intel is locked. AMD is unlocked.

Market segment: Intel is mobile. AMD is desktop.

Release date: Intel released on 2025-01-12. AMD released on 2024-03-31. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $270; the Intel part has no recorded launch MSRP.