AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 split their benchmark wins along clear workload lines. The AMD part wins 4 of the 13 head-to-head tests, all in data processing or integer-heavy tasks. The Intel part wins 9, dominating in rendering, physics, encryption, and single-thread performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 takes the headline multi-core rendering crown. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 is 39.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX's 29400. That is the largest single delta in the entire comparison. The Intel part also wins the single-core Cinebench R23 test by a massive margin: 6909 versus 1807, a 73.8% advantage. For any workload that scales with a single thread or with many threads in a rendering engine, the Intel part is the clear choice.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX fights back in integer math, extended instructions, data compression, and random string sorting. Its PassMark integer math score of 202883 is 23.1% higher than Intel's 164869. Data compression goes AMD's way at 693741 versus 602121, a 15.2% edge. Extended instructions favor AMD by 12.5% (51029 versus 45357), and random string sorting favors AMD by 11% (81775 versus 73651). These are all tasks where the AMD's 16 cores with 32 threads can flex its simultaneous multithreading advantage.

The Intel part wins the remaining tests: data encryption (46949 versus 41974, a 10.6% edge), find prime numbers (459 versus 273, a 40.5% edge), floating point math (194988 versus 121383, a 37.7% edge), PassMark multithread (56602 versus 53204, a 6% edge), and PassMark physics (3598 versus 2297, a 36.2% edge). The two PassMark single-thread tests show Intel at 4881 versus AMD's 3942, a 19.2% gap.

The overall average benchmark score tells the same story. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 averages 75488, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX averages 69875. The Intel part sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, one point above AMD's 94th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P (0.1% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (0.3% behind), showing it sits in strong server-class company. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.5% ahead) and the Intel Core i7-14700K (0.7% behind), placing it in the upper desktop tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core rendering score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 48945, which is 39.9% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX's 29400.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins 4 of the 13 head-to-head tests: PassMark data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4881 in PassMark single-thread, which is 19.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX's 3942. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is even larger: Intel's 6909 is 73.8% above AMD's 1807.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD part has more threads despite fewer cores.

Q: How do the processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 83.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory in dual-channel mode.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX boosts to 5.20 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test produces the most decisive separation. Intel's 48945 beats AMD's 29400 by 39.9%. That is a commanding lead for a desktop part against a mobile flagship. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 also wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 6909 versus 1807, a 73.8% margin. This is the largest percentage difference in any shared test, and it indicates a substantial per-clock advantage for the Intel architecture in this workload.

The PassMark single-thread test confirms the trend, though with a smaller gap. Intel scores 4881, AMD scores 3942, a 19.2% difference. The two results appear twice in the database (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread both show the same values), so the comparison is consistent across both entries.

In floating point math, Intel's 194988 beats AMD's 121383 by 37.7%. Physics simulation also favors Intel heavily: 3598 versus 2297, a 36.2% edge. The find prime numbers test goes to Intel at 459 versus 273, a 40.5% margin. These wins suggest that Intel's architecture handles math-heavy and physics-based workloads with significantly more efficiency.

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX's largest win comes in integer math. Its 202883 score is 23.1% above Intel's 164869. Data compression gives AMD a 15.2% win (693741 versus 602121), extended instructions give AMD a 12.5% win (51029 versus 45357), and random string sorting gives AMD an 11% win (81775 versus 73651). These are all tasks where the AMD part's 32 threads can be put to work, and the results show that the extra thread count translates into real performance advantages.

The closest contest is PassMark multithread, where Intel wins 56602 versus 53204, a margin of only 6%. This is the narrowest delta in the comparison. It shows that in a general multithreaded workload, the two processors are much closer than the Cinebench multi-core result suggests. The AMD part's 16 cores and 32 threads nearly match the Intel part's 24 cores and 24 threads in this test, despite losing by a wide margin in Cinebench.

Data encryption goes to Intel, 46949 versus 41974, a 10.6% edge. This is one of the few memory-intensive tests where Intel's higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s) likely contributes to the outcome.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD part has no hyperthreading equivalent in the Intel part, since Intel's 24 threads equal its 24 cores. The base clocks are close: AMD at 2.40 GHz, Intel at 2.50 GHz. The boost clocks differ more: AMD at 5.20 GHz, Intel at 5.60 GHz.

The TDP ratings differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is rated at 55 W, which fits its mobile Dragon Range design. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is rated at 65 W, consistent with its desktop Arrow Lake-S positioning. The sockets are different: AMD uses Socket FL1, Intel uses Socket 1851.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, and both use a dual-channel bus. The memory bandwidth differs: AMD at 83.2 GB/s, Intel at 102.4 GB/s. The Intel part supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not. PCIe support also differs: AMD provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses Radeon 610M, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segments differ as well: AMD is a mobile processor, Intel is a desktop processor. The release dates are close: AMD on 2024-01-16, Intel on 2024-12-31. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The AMD multiplier is unlocked, while the Intel multiplier is locked. The part numbers differ: AMD is 100-000001486, Intel is SRQD4.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses Zen 4 architecture under the Dragon Range codename, part of the Ryzen 9 generation. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 13,140 million transistors and a die size of 2x 71 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm².

The cache structures are markedly different. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has more cache per core in L1 and L2, but the AMD part has nearly double the total L3 capacity.

The production status for both is Active. Both are manufactured by TSMC, though at different nodes. The Intel part's newer 3 nm process and larger transistor count (17,800 million versus 13,140 million) suggest a more complex design, while the AMD part uses a dual-chiplet layout (2x 71 mm²) versus Intel's monolithic 243 mm² die. The AMD part's Dragon Range design targets mobile systems, while the Intel part's Arrow Lake-S targets desktop systems, which explains the differences in TDP, socket, and integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 as the stronger processor for most compute-heavy tasks. It wins 9 of the 13 shared tests, including the two Cinebench R23 tests, PassMark multithread, physics, floating point math, data encryption, find prime numbers, and single-thread tests. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48945 is 39.9% ahead of the AMD part, and its single-core margin of 73.8% is decisive. The Intel part also has the higher average benchmark score (75488 versus 69875) and the higher percentile ranking (95 versus 94).

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the better choice for specific integer and data-processing workloads. It wins integer math by 23.1%, data compression by 15.2%, extended instructions by 12.5%, and random string sorting by 11%. These wins come from its 32 threads, which give it an advantage in workloads that can use them. Its 64 MB of L3 cache and dual-chiplet Zen 4 design also support these tasks well.

For rendering, physics, encryption, and single-thread responsiveness, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the data-supported pick. Its 24 cores, higher boost clock of 5.60 GHz, newer 3 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s all contribute to its wins. The Intel part also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not.

The AMD part's 55 W TDP makes it suitable for mobile platforms, while the Intel part's 65 W TDP and desktop socket target stationary systems. The data shows two different design philosophies: AMD emphasizes thread count and integer throughput, Intel emphasizes per-core performance and memory bandwidth. For users prioritizing rendering and single-thread speed, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger part. For users prioritizing integer math and data compression, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX delivers the better results.