AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370. The most lopsided result is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel leads by 70.8%, scoring 6909 against AMD's 2018. That gap is mirrored in the multi-core version of the same test: Intel posts 48945 versus 21761, a 55.5% advantage. These are not marginal differences; the Intel part is delivering roughly twice the rendering throughput in both Cinebench workloads.

The pattern continues across PassMark's synthetic suites. In floating point math, Intel's 194988 dwarfs AMD's 76892, a 60.6% deficit. Prime number finding shows a 72.5% gap (459 versus 126), the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Data encryption favors Intel by 52.6% (46949 versus 22252), while extended instructions land at 30.2% (45357 versus 31653). Integer math is the closest major workload, with Intel ahead by 25.4% (164869 versus 122933), though still a clear win.

The multi-threaded PassMark score tells the same story: Intel at 56602, AMD at 35148, a 37.9% margin. Physics simulation shows Intel at 3598 versus 1881, a 47.7% gap. Random string sorting favors Intel by 33.8% (73651 versus 48723), and data compression by 26% (602121 versus 445719). Even in single-thread PassMark, where AMD's Zen 5 architecture is often competitive, Intel leads by 18.6% (4881 versus 3973). The Cinebench R15 results reinforce the pattern: Intel wins multi-core by 30.9% (4933 versus 3409.5) and single-core by 56% (696 versus 306.5).

The average benchmark score confirms the hierarchy. Intel sits at 75488, while AMD manages 37904. That places Intel in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to AMD's 86th. The nearest rivals for each chip underscore their respective tiers: Intel trades blows with AMD EPYC 8224P (75582, a 0.1% delta) and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (75738, a 0.3% delta), while AMD's Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is surrounded by the Intel Core i9-14901E (37911, a 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X (37943, a 0.1% delta). In short, the Intel part competes in a server-class performance band, while the AMD part sits in a mid-range desktop/mobile band.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: for raw compute performance, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is in a different league. Every single benchmark in the database shows Intel ahead, with margins ranging from 18.6% to 72.5%. A user who needs maximum multi-threaded throughput, heavy floating-point math, or encryption workloads should select the Intel part. Its 48945 Cinebench R23 multi-core score and 56602 PassMark multi-thread score place it firmly above anything the AMD chip can produce.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is not without a role, but that role is defined by its mobility characteristics, not its benchmark scores. It is a 28-watt TDP mobile part with an integrated Radeon 890M GPU. The Intel part is a 65-watt desktop chip with a 24-core configuration and a launch MSRP of $579. The data shows the Intel chip wins every compute test, but the AMD part consumes less than half the thermal budget and targets a completely different physical form factor. For a thin-and-light laptop that needs to balance power draw against moderate CPU work, the AMD part makes sense. For any workload that prioritizes raw processing speed, the Intel part is the only choice supported by these measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different fundamental designs. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 233 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its die size is 243 mm², and Intel lists a transistor count of 17,800 million.

The core configurations diverge sharply. AMD offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while Intel offers 24 cores and 24 threads. This means Intel has twice the physical cores but no hyperthreading, while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 24 threads from 12 cores. The cache hierarchy also differs: AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 36 MB of shared L3. The Intel L3 cache is more than double AMD's, which helps explain its advantage in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

Clock speeds favor Intel as well. AMD's base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz. Intel's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 5.60 GHz. The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 890M, while Intel uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Memory support is similar in type (both support DDR5), but AMD adds LPDDR5X support and Intel adds ECC memory support. AMD's memory bandwidth is listed at 89.6 GB/s, while Intel's is 102.4 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also diverges: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Specification Differences

The table below summarizes the fields where the two parts differ, based solely on the recorded specifications.

| Field | AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Strix Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Generation | Ryzen AI 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 233 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 16 MB | 36 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 890M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2024-06-30 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $579 |

| Part number | 100-000000994 | SRQD4 |

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single-core test. It leads by 70.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core (6909 versus 2018), by 56% in Cinebench R15 single-core (696 versus 306.5), and by 18.6% in PassMark single-thread (4881 versus 3973).

Q: How does multi-threaded performance compare?

A: Intel dominates across all multi-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 48945 versus 21761 (a 55.5% advantage), Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4933 versus 3409.5 (a 30.9% advantage), and PassMark multi-thread shows 56602 versus 35148 (a 37.9% advantage).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 459 versus AMD's 126, a 72.5% difference. The second-largest is Cinebench R23 single-core at 70.8%.

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD chip wins?

A: No. The database records 15 head-to-head benchmarks, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 15. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 has zero wins in the recorded comparison.

Q: Do the two chips support the same memory types?

A: Both support DDR5, but AMD also supports LPDDR5X. Intel adds ECC memory support, which AMD does not offer. Intel's memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

Q: How do their market positions differ?

A: The AMD part is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP and a socket for laptops (AMD Socket FP8). The Intel part is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, a desktop socket (Intel Socket 1851), and a launch MSRP of $579. The Intel chip also has a higher percentile ranking (95th versus 86th) and a much higher average benchmark score (75488 versus 37904).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measured compute category. It is the correct choice for any workload that stresses the CPU: Cinebench rendering (both R15 and R23, single and multi-core), PassMark integer math (164869 versus 122933), floating point math (194988 versus 76892), data encryption (46949 versus 22252), data compression (602121 versus 445719), extended instruction sets (45357 versus 31653), prime number finding (459 versus 126), physics simulation (3598 versus 1881), random string sorting (73651 versus 48723), and multithreaded throughput (56602 versus 35148). For desktop users who need maximum processing power and can accommodate a 65 W TDP, the data supports Intel without qualification.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 has no benchmark wins to point to, but its specification profile defines its intended use. Its 28 W TDP, mobile socket, and LPDDR5X memory support make it a laptop-oriented part. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with Zen 5 architecture is capable of solid multi-threaded work within a tight power envelope, as evidenced by its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21761. It also integrates the Radeon 890M GPU, which may provide graphics capability that the Intel part's Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU does not match, though the database records no direct graphics benchmarks. For a portable system where thermal limits are strict and the CPU is not the primary performance driver, the AMD part is the only viable option among the two, simply because the Intel chip is not designed for that form factor.

The verdict is straightforward: Intel wins on every measured metric, while AMD wins on power efficiency and portability. The recorded data does not show a single scenario where the AMD chip outperforms Intel in raw computation, but the two parts target different physical and thermal spaces. A user who can accept a desktop chassis should choose Intel. A user who requires a mobile platform has no choice but AMD, and the data shows that this choice carries a significant compute penalty.