AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear split between the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with each processor dominating in distinct workload categories. The Intel part wins 10 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD part wins 5. However, the margin of victory in the AMD wins is often substantial, particularly in integer-heavy tasks.

The most dramatic single-core disparity appears in Cinebench R23. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 6030 in single-core, while the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 1917. This is a 68.2% advantage for Intel, the largest delta recorded in any shared test. Cinebench R15 single-core tells the same story: Intel leads 607 to 292, a 51.9% gap. These results indicate a fundamental difference in per-thread execution capability, with the Intel architecture holding a decisive edge in lightly threaded workloads.

Multi-core results are more complex. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 5355 versus Intel's 4305, a 24.4% AMD lead. Yet in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the situation reverses: Intel scores 42718 against AMD's 32521, a 23.9% Intel advantage. The two Cinebench versions clearly stress the processors differently. The R15 result favors AMD's 16-core, 32-thread configuration with simultaneous multithreading, while R23 favors Intel's higher base clock and different thread scheduling. The R23 result stands as Intel's largest multi-threaded win in the shared test suite.

PassMark results further define the divide. In integer math, AMD scores 189221 versus Intel's 123030, a 53.8% lead, the largest AMD advantage in any test. Data compression also goes to AMD: 650984 versus 553155, a 17.7% margin. Extended instructions favor AMD at 47802 versus 42880, an 11.5% edge. Random string sorting goes to AMD as well, 75381 versus 67209, a 12.2% gap. These four wins cluster around data manipulation, encryption-adjacent operations, and algorithmic processing where AMD's thread count and cache architecture provide measurable benefits.

Intel's PassMark wins are equally concentrated. Floating point math shows Intel ahead at 159824 versus 113921, a 28.7% advantage. Physics calculations favor Intel at 3183 versus 2104, a 33.9% margin. Find prime numbers goes to Intel at 452 versus 251, a 44.5% lead. Data encryption shows Intel ahead 41292 versus 39318, a smaller 4.8% edge. Single-thread PassMark results give Intel 4698 versus 3874, a 17.5% lead. Multithread PassMark is nearly tied, with Intel at 50146 and AMD at 49731, a 0.8% difference that falls within measurement noise. The aggregate picture shows Intel winning scalar and floating-point workloads, while AMD wins integer and compression-heavy tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split follows the benchmark pattern closely. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus delivers its strongest results in single-threaded and floating-point applications. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6030 and the PassMark floating point score of 159824 indicate a processor well suited for tasks that rely on one or two high-speed cores, such as legacy software, lightly threaded games, and spreadsheet calculations. The physics score of 3183 reinforces this, as physics simulations often depend on per-core throughput rather than raw core counts.

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX excels in multi-threaded integer workloads. The integer math score of 189221, combined with the data compression score of 650984, points toward strengths in database operations, file archiving, compilation tasks, and other workloads that parallelize across many threads. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration with simultaneous multithreading allows AMD to maintain a lead in these areas despite lower per-core performance. The extended instructions score of 47802 also suggests an edge in SIMD-heavy code paths that benefit from AMD's Zen 4 implementation.

For mixed workloads, the data shows a near tie in PassMark multithread, with Intel at 50146 and AMD at 49731. This suggests that general multi-threaded application performance is comparable, with the difference coming down to the specific instruction mix. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives Intel a clear lead at 42718 versus 32521, but Cinebench R15 multi-core gives AMD the reverse at 5355 versus 4305. The discrepancy likely stems from different optimization levels and workload scaling across the two Cinebench versions. The database shows AMD wins 5 tests and Intel wins 10, but the AMD victories tend to be larger in percentage terms, which balances the overall picture for integer-heavy users.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins every single-core test. It leads by 68.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core (6030 versus 1917) and by 17.5% in PassMark single-thread (4698 versus 3874).

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core Cinebench results?

A: The results are split. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD leads 5355 versus 4305, a 24.4% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel leads 42718 versus 32521, a 23.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 650984 in PassMark data compression, which is 17.7% ahead of Intel's 553155. This suggests AMD has an edge in file archiving and compression-heavy workflows.

Q: What does the PassMark multithread score indicate?

A: The two are nearly identical. Intel scores 50146 and AMD scores 49731, a 0.8% difference. This indicates comparable overall multithreaded throughput in general-purpose workloads.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has a base clock of 2.40 GHz. Both have a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning it does not support simultaneous multithreading.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX uses 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: AMD runs at 2.40 GHz, Intel at 4.20 GHz. Both share a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Thermal design power differs as well, with AMD rated at 55 W and Intel at 125 W.

Memory support is identical in type and bus width: both support DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus. Memory bandwidth, however, favors Intel at 115.2 GB/s versus AMD's 83.2 GB/s. ECC memory support is present only on the Intel part. PCIe lanes differ: AMD provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD processor includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics (N/A). Both have unlocked multipliers.

The market segments differ: AMD is a mobile processor using AMD Socket FL1, while Intel is a desktop processor using Intel Socket 1851. Release dates differ as well: AMD was released on 2025-04-22, Intel on 2026-03-10. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The process nodes differ: AMD uses 5 nm, Intel uses 3 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. Transistor counts differ, with AMD at 13,140 million and Intel at 17,800 million. Die sizes also differ: AMD uses 2x 71 mm², Intel uses 243 mm².

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX uses Zen 4 architecture under the Dragon Range codename, belonging to the 8000 series and the Ryzen 9 generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses Arrow Lake Refresh codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 5 generation. The AMD part is built on a 5 nm process, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process, both from TSMC.

Cache organization differs significantly. The AMD processor allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel processor allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 30 MB L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the AMD part, 64 MB versus 30 MB, contributes to its strong performance in data compression and integer math, where larger working sets can remain resident on-chip. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations support its single-core and floating-point advantages.

The Intel part supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. The AMD part includes Radeon 610M integrated graphics, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics. The AMD part uses a dual-chiplet design with 2x 71 mm² die size, reflecting the Dragon Range mobile architecture, while the Intel part uses a monolithic 243 mm² die. The transistor counts reflect the density differences: 13,140 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel, consistent with the newer 3 nm process node on the Intel side. The AMD part's 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes exceed Intel's 20 lanes, which may matter for expansion in mobile platforms. The Intel part's 125 W TDP versus AMD's 55 W TDP indicates a substantial difference in power envelope, aligning with their mobile versus desktop market segments.