AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 and the Intel Processor N250, and the Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This makes a direct comparison of measured performance impossible. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, however, has a full set of recorded benchmark results, which can be contextualized against its nearest rivals in the database.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 achieves an average benchmark score of 37,762. This places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its closest rival in the database is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P132, which has an average score of 37,804, putting the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 just 0.1% behind that part. The Intel Core 5 211E sits at 37,829, with the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 trailing by 0.2%. The Intel Core i5-13600K scores 37,685, which is 0.2% lower than the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 records 37,904, leaving the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 0.4% behind.

Looking at individual workload results for the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435, the data shows a multi-thread score of 19,091 and a single-thread score of 3,757. The integer math workload returns 60,879, while floating point math scores 41,114. Data compression scores 232,803, and data encryption checks in at 11,267. Extended instructions score 16,724, prime number finding scores 57, random string sorting scores 24,936, and physics scoring lands at 995.

Since the Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison is limited to architectural and specification differences that are documented in the database. The absence of benchmark data for the N250 means that the performance relationship between these two processors cannot be established from measured results. The database shows the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 with a 6-core, 12-thread configuration, while the N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Ryzen part boosts to 4.50 GHz, whereas the N250 boosts to 3.80 GHz. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 also supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the N250 is single-channel with 38.4 GB/s.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available data, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 is positioned for multi-threaded and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Its 6 cores and 12 threads, combined with a 4.50 GHz boost clock, deliver a multi-thread score of 19,091. The dual-channel memory interface with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth supports workloads that move large data sets. The L3 cache is 4 MB, with 1 MB of L2 per core, and 80 KB of L1 per core.

The Intel Processor N250, in contrast, has no benchmark scores in the database, so the analysis of where it wins is based on its documented specifications. It has 4 cores and 4 threads with a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache layout differs: 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, though on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The N250 has a 6-watt TDP, which is significantly lower than the 28-watt TDP of the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435. This suggests the N250 is designed for scenarios where power consumption is a primary constraint, such as fanless or battery-optimized systems.

The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 also supports ECC memory, which the N250 does not. The Ryzen part uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the N250 uses a 10 nm node from Intel. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 integrates a Radeon 840M GPU, whereas the N250 uses UHD Graphics 730. The Ryzen part has PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes, while the N250 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

The Verdict

The database shows that the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 is a higher-performance processor in nearly every documented aspect. It has 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 4 threads, a higher boost clock, dual-channel memory, ECC support, newer PCIe generation, and a larger memory bandwidth figure. Its average benchmark score of 37,762 places it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The nearest rival data shows it is within 0.4% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i5-13600K. These are strong comparators, indicating that the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 sits in a competitive performance class.

The Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores, so the database cannot confirm any performance advantage for it. Its 6-watt TDP is the only clear specification where it leads, as the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has a 28-watt TDP. For workloads where power draw is the dominant factor, the N250 is the only choice that the data supports. For everything else, the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has the specifications and benchmark results that indicate superior throughput, memory handling, and single-thread performance.

Users who need multi-threaded compute, fast memory access, or ECC reliability should select the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 based on the data. Users whose primary constraint is power consumption, where a 6-watt processor is required, should select the Intel Processor N250. The database records the Ryzen part as active with a release date of January 4, 2026, and the N250 as active with a release date of January 6, 2025. Both are mobile market segment parts.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435?

A: The average benchmark score is 37,762, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Processor N250 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel Processor N250. Its average benchmark score is listed as zero.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Processor N250 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Processor N250 supports single-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Does the Intel Processor N250 support ECC memory?

A: No, the database does not list ECC memory support for the Intel Processor N250. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 does support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP values for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel Processor N250 has a TDP of 6 watts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Gorgon Point, part of the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation. It is built on a 4 nm process node by TSMC. The processor has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of L3. It supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Radeon 840M. The socket is AMD Socket FP8.

The Intel Processor N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, part of the Intel Processor generation based on Alder Lake-N. It is built on a 10 nm process node by Intel. The processor has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy consists of 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory on a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 730. The socket is Intel BGA 1264.

The process node difference is notable: 4 nm versus 10 nm. The Ryzen part has more cores, threads, and a higher boost clock. The N250 has a larger shared L3 cache (6 MB versus 4 MB), but the Ryzen part offers per-core L2. The Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 has a 28-watt TDP, while the N250 has a 6-watt TDP. The Ryzen part has a dual-channel memory bus and ECC support, while the N250 is single-channel without ECC. The PCIe generation and lane counts also differ, with the Ryzen part using Gen 4 and the N250 using Gen 3. Both processors are marked as active production status and target the mobile market segment.