AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

The Intel Core 7 251TE and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 represent two fundamentally different approaches to x86 processing, yet their average benchmark scores sit remarkably close: 41650 for the Intel part versus 41208 for the AMD part. The Intel chip, a 24-core desktop processor built on a 10 nm Intel process, dominates heavily threaded workloads with raw core count, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, a 6-core mobile part on TSMC's 4 nm node with Zen 5 architecture, counters with superior single-thread efficiency. The data shows an 88th percentile ranking for the Intel chip and an 87th percentile for the AMD chip, placing both in the upper echelon of all CPUs, but their strengths could not be more different. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, answers common questions, and examines the benchmark and specification gaps that define this matchup.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251TE is the clear victor in any workload that scales with thread count or memory bandwidth. Its 24 cores and 32 threads, paired with 36 MB of shared L3 cache, give it overwhelming advantages in multi-threaded PassMark tests. The data shows Intel winning 8 of the 11 head-to-head benchmarks, with particularly decisive margins in floating-point math (99.4% ahead), integer math (90.5% ahead), and prime number finding (81.8% ahead). For content creation, scientific computing, or any parallel processing task, the Intel part is the obvious choice.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 wins in precisely the opposite scenario: lightly threaded, latency-sensitive work. Its Zen 5 architecture delivers a 5.7% higher single-thread score (3785 versus 3568), making it the better option for everyday desktop responsiveness, legacy applications, and tasks that depend on a single fast core. The AMD chip also edges out Intel in extended instruction workloads (18456 versus 16974, an 8% advantage), suggesting better optimization for SIMD-heavy code paths. For a mobile platform where battery life and thermals matter, the AMD part's 28 W TDP versus Intel's 45 W TDP reinforces its suitability for thin-and-light systems.

The split is clean: Intel for throughput, AMD for responsiveness and efficiency. The Intel chip's 42.6% lead in multi-thread PassMark (30022 versus 21054) is the single largest differentiator in everyday parallel work, while AMD's single-thread win is smaller but consistent across both single_thread and singlethread tests. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, but the workloads that produce those averages are polar opposites.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Intel's core count advantage is 4x in cores and 2.67x in threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE averages 41650 across all benchmarks, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 averages 41208. That is a difference of 442 points, or roughly 1.1%, placing both processors at nearly identical overall performance levels.

Q: Which chip wins in single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 wins in single-thread performance. Its PassMark single_thread score is 3785 versus Intel's 3568, a 5.7% advantage. This makes the AMD part better for tasks that rely on a single fast core.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark floating_point_math, where the Intel Core 7 251TE scores 85607 against AMD's 42934, a 99.4% advantage. Intel also leads integer_math by 90.5% (125739 versus 65991).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core 7 251TE and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 support ECC memory. Both also use dual-channel memory buses and have identical memory bandwidth ratings of 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440's 4.80 GHz. However, AMD's base clock is higher at 2.00 GHz versus Intel's 1.40 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a one-sided affair in raw compute throughput, with Intel winning every heavy multi-threaded test by substantial margins. The most dramatic result is in floating_point_math: Intel scores 85607 against AMD's 42934, a 99.4% delta that nearly doubles AMD's output. Integer_math follows the same pattern, with Intel at 125739 versus 65991 for AMD, a 90.5% advantage. These results are consistent with the core count disparity, as floating-point and integer operations scale almost linearly with available cores in PassMark's parallel test harness.

Prime number finding shows Intel's largest percentage lead at 81.8% (140 versus 77), a test that benefits from Intel's larger 36 MB L3 cache and 24-core topology. Data compression follows at 30.4% (334399 versus 256420), while random string sorting shows a 45.5% delta (39643 versus 27252). The physics test, which simulates rigid body dynamics, sees Intel ahead by 73.2% (1938 versus 1119). Multi-thread overall shows Intel at 30022 versus AMD's 21054, a 42.6% lead that encapsulates the entire parallel performance story.

Data encryption shows Intel ahead by a massive 78.6% (22176 versus 12418), likely due to its higher core count and cache resources handling AES workloads more effectively.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440's wins are narrower but meaningful. Its single_thread score of 3785 tops Intel's 3568 by 5.7%, a margin that appears identically in both single_thread and singlethread test entries. Extended instructions show AMD ahead by 8% (18456 versus 16974), indicating that Zen 5's AVX-512 and related instruction handling outperforms Intel's implementation in this specific test. These two wins, combined with the near-identical average scores, show that AMD has optimized its architecture for per-core efficiency rather than brute force.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence: Intel offers 24 cores and 32 threads, while AMD offers 6 cores and 12 threads. This 4x core advantage drives most of the benchmark deltas. Clock speeds differ in both directions, with Intel's boost clock at 5.40 GHz exceeding AMD's 4.80 GHz, but AMD's base clock of 2.00 GHz running higher than Intel's 1.40 GHz. Power consumption is also significantly different, with Intel rated at 45 W TDP versus AMD's 28 W TDP, reflecting their desktop versus mobile market positioning.

Process node and foundry differ entirely: Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry, while AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. Die sizes are close, with Intel at 215 mm² and AMD at 195 mm², but the transistor density on TSMC's 4 nm node allows AMD to pack Zen 5 cores more efficiently. Cache hierarchies show Intel with larger per-core L2 (1.25 MB per core versus 1 MB per core) and a much larger shared L3 (36 MB versus 8 MB). Both have the same 80 KB L1 per core.

Memory support differs in type but not bandwidth: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5, while AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel buses and deliver 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe generations differ, with Intel offering Gen 5 (16 lanes CPU-only) and AMD offering Gen 4 (16 lanes CPU-only). Integrated graphics also differ, with Intel featuring UHD Graphics 770 and AMD featuring Radeon 840M.

Sockets and market segments are fundamentally opposed: Intel uses Socket 1700 for desktops, while AMD uses Socket FP8 for mobile. The Intel chip's launch MSRP is $384 (stated once, nothing more), while AMD has no launch MSRP in the data. Both have locked multipliers and are marked as Active in production.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide starts with the core design itself. Intel's Bartlett Lake generation uses a 10 nm process at Intel's foundry, with a die size of 215 mm². AMD's Gorgon Point uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 195 mm². The process node difference is stark, with TSMC's 4 nm offering roughly double the transistor density of Intel's 10 nm node, which helps explain how AMD fits 6 high-performance Zen 5 cores into a smaller die.

Cache architecture reflects the different design philosophies. Intel allocates 1.25 MB of L2 per core and a shared 36 MB L3, giving a massive pool for data reuse across 24 cores. AMD uses 1 MB of L2 per core and only 8 MB of shared L3, a much smaller aggregate but one that is optimized for the latency characteristics of Zen 5. The L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core, but the L2 and L3 differences shape how each processor handles memory-bound workloads.

The Intel chip's 24 cores and 32 threads suggest a hybrid configuration common in Bartlett Lake, likely mixing performance and efficiency core types to balance throughput against power. AMD's 6 cores and 12 threads are uniform Zen 5 cores, with the generation description noting "Zen 5 / Zen 5c" indicating a possible mix of full Zen 5 and compact Zen 5c cores, though the 6-core count suggests a simpler configuration. The Intel chip's 45 W TDP versus AMD's 28 W TDP reflects the desktop versus mobile design targets, with Intel prioritizing sustained multi-core performance and AMD prioritizing efficiency in thermally constrained laptops.

Memory controller differences are minimal in bandwidth but notable in compatibility: Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5, while AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The former allows cheaper or legacy memory options, while the latter enables low-power mobile configurations. Both support ECC, and both use 16 CPU-only PCIe lanes, though Intel's Gen 5 interface offers twice the bandwidth of AMD's Gen 4. The integrated GPUs are a final differentiator, with Intel's UHD Graphics 770 and AMD's Radeon 840M representing different approaches to iGPU performance, though no benchmark data is available to compare them directly.