AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy very different positions in the desktop processor market, as reflected in the database’s recorded scores. The Core Ultra 9 285 holds the 95th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ryzen 7 8700F sits at the 82nd percentile. The average benchmark score gap is substantial: 75,488 for the Intel part versus 30,746 for the AMD part. The head-to-head results confirm a sweep, with the Core Ultra 9 285 winning all 17 recorded comparisons. The data does not indicate a single benchmark where the Ryzen 7 8700F outperforms the Core Ultra 9 285. The choice between them, based strictly on performance metrics, is therefore not about picking a winner in specific tasks, but about understanding the scale of the performance difference and the platform context around each chip.

The Verdict

The database’s benchmark results are unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a level of multi-threaded and single-threaded performance that the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F cannot match in any recorded test. The largest margin appears in PassMark’s prime number search, where the Intel part scores 459 versus 98 for the AMD part, a delta of -78.6% from the perspective of the AMD processor. In floating point math, the Intel chip scores 194,988 against 62,629, a -67.9% delta. These are not marginal differences; they represent a completely different performance class.

The Ryzen 7 8700F is an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 4 processor with a 65W TDP, designed for the AM5 socket. Its benchmark scores place it near the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS and the Intel Core i5-13600H, with the closest rival being the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS at a -0.4% delta in average score. This positions the 8700F as a mainstream desktop chip. The Core Ultra 9 285, meanwhile, is a 24-core, 24-thread Arrow Lake processor with a 65W TDP on the LGA 1851 socket. Its nearest rivals are server and high-end workstation chips like the AMD EPYC 8224P and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, with deltas under 0.3%. The performance envelope of the Core Ultra 9 285 is closer to EPYC-class hardware than to the Ryzen 7 8700F’s peers.

For a user building a desktop system where the processor’s compute throughput is the primary concern, the data indicates the Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice of these two. The Ryzen 7 8700F, however, remains relevant for those who prioritize its platform attributes. The 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5, has an unlocked multiplier, and carries a launch MSRP of $270. The Core Ultra 9 285 has a locked multiplier and a launch MSRP of $579. The performance data justifies the price differential, but the 8700F’s lower cost and unlocked overclocking may appeal to a different build philosophy. The data shows no scenario where the 8700F wins on performance; the decision rests on platform features and cost, not on benchmark scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has an average score of 30,746. The Intel part also ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 82nd percentile for the AMD part.

Q: How many benchmark tests did the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 win in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 won all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F won zero.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 459 and the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 98, a delta of -78.6% from the AMD chip’s perspective.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two chips?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has an integrated GPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is built on the Zen 4 architecture, with the codename Phoenix. It is part of the 8000 series and is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The chip contains 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to reach that thread count. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285, in contrast, uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-S, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 2. It is built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, and has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it does not use multithreading on its cores.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has a much larger 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger cache pool, combined with the higher core count, contributes to the Intel chip’s dominant performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The transistor counts also differ: the AMD chip has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip has 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die. The Intel chip’s smaller process node allows for a different transistor density, but the AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller physical area.

The platforms themselves are distinct. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, whereas the Intel chip’s multiplier is locked. The AMD part is a desktop processor with PCIe Gen 4 support, offering 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes from the CPU, which is a newer and faster interconnect standard. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the Intel chip has a higher recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the AMD chip. The Intel chip also includes integrated graphics in the form of Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the AMD chip has no integrated graphics at all.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two processors reveal clear differences in core configuration and memory throughput. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. While the Intel chip has a lower base clock, its higher boost clock and far greater core count drive its benchmark advantage. Both processors are rated at 65W TDP, which is a notable point of similarity given the difference in core counts.

The memory bandwidth figures differ, with the Intel chip offering 102.4 GB/s and the AMD chip offering 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Intel chip but absent on the AMD chip. The PCIe generation also differs: the AMD chip uses Gen 4, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5. The integrated graphics situation is another differentiator, with the Intel chip featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and the AMD chip having none. The AMD chip’s multiplier is unlocked, while the Intel chip’s is not. Release dates also differ, with the AMD part launching on 2024-03-31 and the Intel part on 2024-12-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database shows a consistent pattern across all 17 tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 against the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F’s 26,646, a delta of -45.6%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 6,909 versus 3,761, also a -45.6% delta. The R20 and R15 versions show the same -45.6% delta for both multi-core and single-core tests, indicating a proportional advantage that scales across rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the Intel chip’s architecture pulls ahead most dramatically. In floating point math, the Intel chip scores 194,988 against 62,629, a -67.9% delta. This is the second-largest gap in the entire set. The find prime numbers test shows the largest gap at -78.6%, with the Intel chip scoring 459 and the AMD chip scoring 98. This suggests the Intel chip’s integer and branch-heavy workload handling is exceptionally strong. In physics, the Intel chip scores 3,598 versus 1,553, a -56.8% delta. Data encryption shows a -52.9% delta, with scores of 46,949 and 22,117.

The smallest gaps are still substantial. In PassMark single-thread, the Intel chip scores 4,881 versus 3,872, a -20.7% delta. This is the closest margin in the entire comparison, indicating that the AMD chip is more competitive in lightly threaded, single-core tasks, but still loses by a significant margin. Data compression shows a -37.2% delta, with scores of 602,121 and 378,160. Integer math shows a -39.1% delta, with scores of 164,869 and 100,371. Random string sorting shows a -38.3% delta, with scores of 73,651 and 45,425. The multi-thread test shows a -45.4% delta, with scores of 56,602 and 30,893. Extended instructions show a -37.2% delta, with scores of 45,357 and 28,474.

Where Each One Wins

The data provides no instance where the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins a benchmark against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The win tally is 17 to 0 in favor of the Intel part. Therefore, the use-case split is not about workload-specific victories, but about the scale of the Intel chip’s dominance and the AMD chip’s platform attributes.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice for compute-heavy desktop workloads. Its performance in rendering, as measured by Cinebench R23 multi-core at 48,945, is over 80% higher than the AMD chip’s 26,646. For scientific computing and simulation, the floating point math score of 194,988 versus 62,629 indicates a massive advantage. The data encryption score of 46,949 versus 22,117 shows it is also stronger in security-related tasks. The physics score of 3,598 versus 1,553 suggests better simulation performance. For any task that scales with core count, cache size, or raw FPU throughput, the Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior part.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, despite losing every benchmark, still has a defined role. Its 65W TDP matches the Intel chip, but it uses the AM5 platform with an unlocked multiplier, allowing for user-controlled overclocking. Its launch MSRP of $270 is lower than the Intel chip’s $579, though the analysis here does not address cost-effectiveness. The AMD chip’s single-thread score of 3,872 in PassMark is closer to the Intel chip’s 4,881 than in any other test, indicating it is less disadvantaged in simple, single-threaded workloads. For a desktop build on the AM5 platform where the user values overclocking and a lower initial cost, the 8700F remains a viable processor, but the database’s performance metrics do not place it in the same class as the Core Ultra 9 285.