AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 are both 65-watt desktop processors, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The data shows a clear split: Intel dominates the majority of benchmark categories with 15 wins, while AMD secures 2 decisive victories in specific workloads. This comparison highlights how architectural choices—Arrow Lake's new node and hybrid layout versus Zen 3's mature SMT design—translate into real performance differences across diverse tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 claims victory in 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, establishing itself as the overall performance leader. Its wins span rendering workloads, single-threaded tasks, and most PassMark subtests. The Cinebench suite is particularly one-sided: Intel wins all six tests (R15, R20, and R23 in both single and multi-core variants), with consistent margins around 12.3 to 12.5 percent. This suggests a fundamental advantage in both lightly-threaded and fully-loaded scenarios.

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 wins exactly two benchmarks, but both are significant. It takes PassMark data compression with a score of 416,599 against Intel's 382,742, an 8.1 percent advantage. More striking is its integer math performance: AMD scores 129,768 versus Intel's 93,709, a massive 27.8 percent lead. These wins reveal a pattern—AMD's Zen 3 architecture handles certain compute-heavy, integer-based workloads with exceptional efficiency, likely due to its 24 threads versus Intel's 14.

For users prioritizing Cinebench rendering, encryption, floating-point math, or physics simulations, the Intel part is clearly superior. For data compression and integer-heavy calculations, AMD's PRO 5945 offers a compelling alternative despite its overall lower average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design. Intel's Arrow Lake-S uses a 3 nm process from TSMC, packing 17,800 million transistors into a 243 mm² die. AMD's Vermeer (Zen 3) relies on the older 7 nm node, with 8,300 million transistors spread across two 74 mm² chiplets. This node advantage helps explain Intel's higher clock speeds: 5.10 GHz boost versus AMD's 4.70 GHz, and 3.50 GHz base versus 3.00 GHz.

Core configuration differs dramatically. Intel provides 14 cores and 14 threads—no simultaneous multithreading—while AMD offers 12 cores and 24 threads thanks to SMT. This means AMD has 10 more logical threads for parallel workloads, yet Intel still wins most multi-threaded tests. The cache hierarchy also favors AMD in capacity: 64 MB of L3 cache versus Intel's 24 MB. However, Intel counters with larger per-core L1 (192 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (3 MB versus 512 KB) allocations.

Memory support reflects their generations. Intel uses DDR5 with dual-channel 102.4 GB/s bandwidth; AMD sticks with DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG integrated graphics with 64 execution units; AMD has no iGPU. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 on Intel and Gen 4 on AMD, both with 20 CPU lanes. These differences explain why Intel wins bandwidth-sensitive tests despite AMD's thread advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. In R23 multi-core, Intel scores 32,987 against AMD's 29,366, a 12.3 percent lead. Single-core R23 shows Intel at 4,657 versus 4,145, a 12.4 percent margin. The R20 and R15 tests mirror these figures almost exactly, with Intel winning by 12.3 to 12.5 percent. This uniformity suggests a fixed architectural efficiency gap rather than workload-specific quirks.

PassMark results reveal more nuance. Intel's largest wins come in find prime numbers (399 vs 228, a 75 percent lead) and floating point math (121,454 vs 70,291, a 72.8 percent lead). Physics testing shows Intel ahead by 54.8 percent (2,743 vs 1,772). Extended instructions favor Intel by 21.1 percent (32,731 vs 27,031). Single-thread performance shows Intel at 4,475 versus 3,499, a 27.9 percent advantage. Data encryption goes to Intel by 15.4 percent (30,374 vs 26,313).

AMD's wins are concentrated but emphatic. Integer math shows a 27.8 percent lead (129,768 vs 93,709), which is surprising given Intel's overall strength. Data compression gives AMD an 8.1 percent edge (416,599 vs 382,742). These two results suggest that AMD's SMT implementation provides a tangible benefit for integer-heavy, compression-style algorithms, even though it loses in most other categories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,657 versus AMD's 4,145, a 12.4 percent lead. PassMark single-thread shows Intel at 4,475 versus 3,499, a 27.9 percent advantage.

Q: Does AMD's 24-thread count help in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Not in most tests. Despite having 10 more threads, AMD loses Cinebench R23 multi-core (29,366 vs 32,987) and PassMark multithread (34,549 vs 38,809), both by 12.3 percent. The exception is integer math, where AMD wins by 27.8 percent.

Q: What explains AMD's data compression victory?

A: AMD scores 416,599 in PassMark data compression versus Intel's 382,742, an 8.1 percent lead. This likely stems from its 64 MB L3 cache and SMT design, which excel at handling compression-style workloads that benefit from high thread counts and large cache capacity.

Q: Is the Intel processor worth its launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a launch MSRP of $270. Given its 12.3 percent average lead in Cinebench tests and 15 total benchmark wins, the data shows it offers superior overall performance compared to the AMD part.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: Both have a 65-watt TDP. However, Intel achieves higher performance at the same power envelope, winning 15 of 17 benchmarks. This indicates better performance-per-watt overall, despite AMD's wins in two specific tests.

Q: Can either processor use DDR4 memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 requires DDR5 memory, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 uses DDR4. Their memory bandwidths reflect this: 102.4 GB/s for Intel versus 51.2 GB/s for AMD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively toward the Intel Core Ultra 5 245 for most users. It wins every Cinebench test, all single-thread benchmarks, and 13 of 15 PassMark subtests. Its 3 nm process node delivers higher clocks (5.10 GHz boost) and better efficiency, evidenced by consistent 12 percent margins in rendering workloads. The 72.8 percent lead in floating-point math and 75 percent lead in prime number finding make it the clear choice for scientific computing, physics simulations, and encryption tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 serves a narrower but real niche. Its 27.8 percent integer math advantage and 8.1 percent data compression lead indicate strength in specific enterprise or database workloads where those operations dominate. The 64 MB L3 cache and 24 threads provide genuine benefits in those scenarios. For users running compression-heavy pipelines or integer-based calculations, AMD's part is worth considering.

Overall average benchmark scores place Intel at 48,107 versus AMD's 47,527, a 1.2 percent difference that understates Intel's dominance in most tests. Intel sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, matching AMD's percentile, but with a higher absolute score. The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700KF (0.4 percent behind), while Intel's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D (0.5 percent behind). These rankings confirm both processors are competitive in their class, but Intel's broader benchmark coverage makes it the safer recommendation for general-purpose desktop computing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 | AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 12 |

| Threads | 14 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 17,800 million | 8,300 million |

| Die Size | 243 mm² | 2x 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 64 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe Version | Gen 5 | Gen 4 |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU | None |

| Release Date | 2025-01-06 | 2022-04-03 |

| Launch MSRP | $270 | N/A |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1851 | AMD Socket AM4 |

The specification table highlights the generational gap: Intel's Arrow Lake uses a 3 nm process with DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5, while AMD's Vermeer relies on 7 nm, DDR4, and PCIe Gen 4. Intel's higher clocks and larger per-core caches compensate for AMD's thread count and L3 capacity. Both CPUs share a 65-watt TDP and ECC support, but the Intel part includes integrated graphics, a feature absent on AMD. The socket difference (1851 versus AM4) means platform choice will heavily influence which processor is more practical, though the data itself favors Intel's performance across nearly every metric.