AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F across all eleven head-to-head PassMark comparisons. The Intel part wins every test, but the margins vary significantly depending on workload type. The largest gap appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Intel scores 352 against the AMD's 77, a 78.1% lead. This test heavily favors the Intel architecture's integer throughput and is the single most lopsided result in the comparison.

Floating point performance also shows a substantial divide. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F records 92,554 in passmark_floating_point_math, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 scores 42,934. That translates to a 53.6% advantage for Intel, indicating that the desktop part's compute resources are better suited to scientific and engineering workloads that rely on FPU throughput. Similarly, passmark_physics shows Intel at 2,430 versus AMD's 1,119, a 54% lead, which suggests stronger performance in simulation and physics-based tasks.

The gap narrows considerably in integer math. The Intel part scores 66,417, while the AMD reaches 65,991, a difference of only 0.6%. This near-tie indicates that for general integer arithmetic, both processors deliver comparable results despite their architectural differences. Data compression tells a different story: Intel scores 310,843 against AMD's 256,420, a 17.5% advantage. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming, suggesting that compression workloads benefit from the Intel part's higher thread count and cache configuration.

Encryption and extended instruction results both favor Intel by substantial margins. In passmark_data_encryption, Intel scores 22,648 versus 12,418 for AMD, a 45.2% lead. In passmark_extended_instructions, Intel scores 28,027 against 18,456, a 34.1% advantage. These results indicate that the Intel part handles cryptographic operations and SIMD-style instruction sets more efficiently. Random string sorting shows Intel ahead at 37,325 versus 27,252, a 27% lead, which points to better memory subsystem behavior under random access patterns.

The multithread score is perhaps the most telling overall metric. Intel scores 31,004, while AMD scores 21,054, a 32.1% difference. This aggregate result reflects the combined effects of core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth. Single-thread performance also favors Intel: 4,397 versus 3,785, a 13.9% lead. The single-thread gap is smaller than the multithread gap, indicating that the Intel part's advantage grows when more cores are engaged.

The average benchmark score places the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41,208, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F sits at 37,313. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the AMD part actually has a higher average score in the database. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the AMD part's PassMark scores are supplemented by its overall benchmark profile, which includes results from other tests not in the head-to-head list. The Intel part's average is dragged down by its Cinebench scores, which are not compared directly here. The AMD part also holds an 87th percentile ranking versus the Intel's 85th, meaning the AMD chip outperforms a slightly larger share of all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the codename Gorgon Point. It belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation, which mixes Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC, with the codename Arrow Lake-S. It belongs to the Ultra 5 series of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Intel part has 10 cores and 10 threads, with no SMT support. Despite having four fewer threads, the Intel part wins all multithreaded tests, which indicates that its physical cores are substantially more capable per thread. The Intel part also has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for AMD, and a slightly higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are built on different principles. The AMD part uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's larger cache at every level contributes directly to its wins in data compression, random string sorting, and encryption, all of which benefit from keeping more working data close to the cores.

The memory interface also differs. Both use dual-channel buses, but the AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part supports only DDR5 with a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The Intel part's 14.3% higher memory bandwidth helps explain its advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks like floating point math and data compression. ECC support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part, which matters for workstation and reliability-focused users.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Intel part's newer PCIe standard and higher lane count provide more headroom for expansion cards and storage devices. The AMD part includes integrated Radeon 840M graphics, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all, making the Intel chip dependent on a discrete GPU. The AMD part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8 with a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851 with a 65 W TDP. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $231.

The transistor count and die size also show different design scales. The Intel part contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the AMD part's transistor count is not recorded but its die size is 195 mm². The Intel part's larger die and higher transistor count support its additional cores, larger caches, and wider execution resources.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner in the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F for raw compute throughput. It wins every head-to-head test, with leads ranging from 0.6% in integer math to 78.1% in prime number finding. The multithread score of 31,004 versus 21,054 represents a 32.1% advantage, and the single-thread score of 4,397 versus 3,785 represents a 13.9% advantage. For users who prioritize maximum performance in CPU-bound tasks, the Intel part is the better choice based on these measurements.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 retains a higher average benchmark score of 41,208 versus 37,313, and a higher percentile ranking of 87 versus 85. This suggests that the AMD part performs better relative to the broader CPU landscape, even though it loses the direct comparison. The AMD part also offers integrated graphics and ECC memory support, which are absent from the Intel part. For mobile deployments or systems that need a built-in display output, the AMD part is the only viable option between these two.

The Intel part's higher TDP of 65 W versus 28 W reflects its desktop positioning and its willingness to consume more power for higher performance. The AMD part's lower power draw makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems where thermal limits are tighter. The choice between these two chips depends on whether the user needs the Intel part's superior compute scores or the AMD part's integrated graphics, ECC support, and mobile form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins all eleven head-to-head PassMark tests. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 does not win any of the recorded comparisons.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Intel part scores 4,397 in passmark_single_thread, while the AMD part scores 3,785. This gives the Intel part a 13.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD part have higher overall benchmark scores despite losing the head-to-head?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 has an average benchmark score of 41,208 and an 87th percentile ranking, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has an average score of 37,313 and an 85th percentile ranking.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD part supports 89.6 GB/s with DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The Intel part supports 102.4 GB/s with DDR5 memory only.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 includes Radeon 840M integrated graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part has 10 cores and 10 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F wins in every measured compute category. Its largest advantage is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it leads by 78.1%. This test is heavily reliant on integer division and loop efficiency, and the Intel part's 10 physical cores with larger per-core L1 and L2 caches give it a clear edge. The 53.6% lead in floating point math and 54% lead in physics reinforce the Intel part's dominance in number-crunching workloads.

The Intel part also wins in data encryption by 45.2%, extended instructions by 34.1%, and multithread by 32.1%. These results indicate that the Intel chip is better suited for encryption-heavy workloads, SIMD-optimized code, and parallel processing tasks like video rendering and compilation. The 27% lead in random string sorting and 17.5% lead in data compression show that the Intel part's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a tangible benefit in data-intensive operations.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 wins in no benchmark comparisons, but it holds advantages in non-performance areas. Its integrated Radeon 840M graphics allow for display output without a discrete GPU, which is essential for mobile systems. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive workloads that require data integrity. Its 28 W TDP and mobile socket design position it for laptops and low-power systems where the Intel part's 65 W TDP would be impractical.

The AMD part's higher average benchmark score of 41,208 and 87th percentile ranking indicate that it performs well relative to the entire CPU database, even though it loses to the Intel part in direct comparison. The AMD part also supports LPDDR5X memory, which is common in thin-and-light laptops, while the Intel part is limited to DDR5. For users who need a processor with integrated graphics, ECC support, and mobile compatibility, the AMD part is the appropriate choice. For users who need maximum compute performance and can supply a discrete GPU, the Intel part delivers higher scores across the board.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses 10 cores and 10 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for AMD and 3.30 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 4.80 GHz for AMD and 4.90 GHz for Intel. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part has a 65 W TDP.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. The architectures are Zen 5 for AMD and Arrow Lake for Intel. The process nodes are 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, both from TSMC. The Intel part's die size is 243 mm², while the AMD part's is 195 mm². The Intel part has 17,800 million transistors; the AMD part's transistor count is not recorded.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 and LPDDR5X for AMD, DDR5 only for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 102.4 GB/s for Intel. ECC memory is supported on AMD but not on Intel.

PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD and Gen 5 with 20 lanes for Intel. The AMD part includes Radeon 840M integrated graphics; the Intel part has no integrated graphics. The AMD part is a mobile processor, while the Intel part is a desktop processor. The AMD part's release date is January 4, 2026, while the Intel part's release date is January 6, 2025. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $231; the AMD part has no recorded MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are currently active in production.