AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 265, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has no recorded benchmark scores. This asymmetry shapes the comparison. The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 64,640, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4464P at 64,823 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F at 64,438 (0.3% lower), the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64,202 (0.7% lower), and the AMD EPYC 9124 at 65,104 (0.7% higher). These margins are tight, meaning the Core Ultra 7 265 sits at the center of a cluster of server and workstation parts.

Looking at the Intel part's specific scores, the Cinebench R23 multicore result of 42,216 is the standout. This figure is roughly 6.7 times the R20 multicore score of 6,268, which reflects the longer workload and scaling across its 20 threads. The R23 single-core score of 5,960 paired with the R20 single-core score of 884 shows a similar multiplier effect. The PassMark suite tells a more granular story. The data compression score of 522,983 dwarfs the encryption score of 40,456, a ratio of nearly 13 to 1. Floating-point math comes in at 172,776, while integer math scores 134,773. The multithread score of 49,682 and single-thread score of 4,689 separate these workloads by roughly 10.6 times.

Since the AMD part has no benchmark entries in the database, there is no direct head-to-head measurement to cite. The comparison must rely on the architectural and specification differences recorded for each part. The Intel chip has a clear advantage in core count, 20 versus 12, and in L3 cache, 30 MB versus 16 MB. Its boost clock is also marginally higher at 5.30 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The AMD part counters with 24 threads versus 20, meaning it has simultaneous multithreading while the Intel part does not. The base clock favors Intel as well, 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. These are the structural facts that define the matchup.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each processor. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop part with a 65 W TDP and a launch MSRP of $394. It occupies the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals are all EPYC or identical-F variants, which indicates strong absolute performance. Its 20 cores and 30 MB of shared L3 cache suit heavily threaded workloads like rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth reinforces that profile.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 is a mobile part with a 28 W TDP and a 12-core, 24-thread configuration. Its Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC node gives it efficiency credentials, but the database records no benchmark scores for it. The percentile field shows 50, which is the median, but without actual measurements this cannot be verified. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is lower than the Intel part, and the L3 cache is 16 MB versus 30 MB. Its integrated Radeon 890M graphics likely serve a laptop use case better than the Intel Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, though the database does not include iGPU benchmarks for direct comparison.

From the recorded data, the Intel part is the one with proven performance numbers. The 93rd percentile ranking and the average score of 64,640 place it firmly in high-end territory. The AMD part lacks any benchmark entries, so it cannot be positioned against the Intel chip with the same confidence. The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the stronger choice for desktop workloads based on available measurements, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 is a mobile processor whose performance remains undocumented in this database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has 12 cores.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 boosts to 5.30 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the 5.20 GHz boost clock of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 64,640 is 0.3% below the AMD EPYC 4464P (64,823), 0.3% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 265F (64,438), 0.7% above the AMD EPYC 7343 (64,202), and 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 9124 (65,104).

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two parts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has a TDP of 65 W. The AMD part is rated for lower power consumption.

Q: Does the AMD processor have more threads than the Intel processor?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has 24 threads from 12 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 threads from 20 cores.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 uses a 4 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 is a mobile part built for the AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is a desktop part using Intel Socket 1851. The core counts diverge sharply: AMD has 12 cores and 24 threads, Intel has 20 cores and 20 threads. This means the AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count, while the Intel chip relies on physical cores alone.

Clock speeds show Intel ahead on both ends. The Intel base clock is 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz for AMD, and the Intel boost clock is 5.30 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The TDP gap is substantial, with AMD at 28 W and Intel at 65 W. Cache allocation also differs. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3.

Memory support is not identical. Both use DDR5, but the AMD part also supports LPDDR5X, while the Intel part lists DDR5 only. Memory bus width is dual-channel for both, but bandwidth differs: AMD records 89.6 GB/s, Intel records 102.4 GB/s. The PCIe interface is a notable split. AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on both, with AMD's Radeon 890M and Intel's Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU, though the database provides no performance data for either.

The Intel part is listed with a launch MSRP of $394, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel die size is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, while the AMD die size is 233 mm² with no transistor count recorded. The release dates differ as well, with Intel launching in January 2025 and AMD in December 2025.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is clear from the recorded data. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 uses Zen 5 architecture under the codename Gorgon Point, belonging to the Ryzen AI 400 generation that combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The process node is 4 nm from TSMC. This is a mobile-oriented design, evidenced by the 28 W TDP and the FP8 socket.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses Arrow Lake architecture under the codename Arrow Lake-S, belonging to the Ultra 7 generation. The process node is 3 nm from TSMC, a smaller geometry than the AMD part. The transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million, and the die size is 243 mm². The AMD die is slightly smaller at 233 mm², though its transistor count is not listed.

The core layout philosophy differs. Intel's Arrow Lake design uses 20 physical cores without hyperthreading, yielding 20 threads. AMD's Zen 5 design uses 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading, yielding 24 threads. The cache hierarchy reflects this split. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, which are larger per-core allocations than AMD's 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2. The L3 cache is shared on the Intel part at 30 MB, while AMD provides 16 MB of L3.

PCIe generations differ, with Intel supporting Gen 5 at 20 lanes and AMD supporting Gen 4 at 16 lanes. This gives the Intel part a bandwidth advantage for expansion cards and NVMe storage. Memory bandwidth follows the same trend, with Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD at 89.6 GB/s. The integrated graphics solutions differ: AMD uses the Radeon 890M, while Intel uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU. The database does not include iGPU benchmarks, so relative graphics performance cannot be assessed.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins on every measurable benchmark category in the database. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 64,640 place it among high-end desktop processors. The 20-core, 20-thread configuration with 30 MB of L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth suits parallel workloads. The recorded PassMark scores show strength in data compression (522,983), floating-point math (172,776), and integer math (134,773). The multithread score of 49,682 indicates robust scaling across its physical cores.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 wins on efficiency metrics. Its 28 W TDP is less than half of the Intel part's 65 W TDP. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm node targets mobile platforms, as the FP8 socket and LPDDR5X memory support suggest. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is lower than Intel's, but the lower power envelope makes it suitable for laptops where thermal and battery constraints apply.

For desktop builders seeking maximum multi-threaded performance, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 is the only part with recorded benchmark scores, and those scores are strong. Its Cinebench R23 multicore result of 42,216 and PassMark multithread score of 49,682 confirm high throughput. For mobile users prioritizing power efficiency, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 offers a 28 W TDP and a smaller 233 mm² die, though its actual performance remains unmeasured in the database.

The Intel part also wins on memory bandwidth and PCIe capability, with 102.4 GB/s and Gen 5 support at 20 lanes. The AMD part counters with more threads per watt, but the lack of benchmark data prevents a quantitative comparison. The recorded data favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 across all measured workloads, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 holds advantages in power consumption and mobile form factor support.