AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 records an average benchmark score of 62,498, which places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has an average score of 48,995, placing it in the 90th percentile. Despite the AMD chip's higher average, the Intel part wins 10 of the 11 head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database shows the AMD chip sits within a tight band of competition. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX by 0.4%, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 by 0.5%, and the Intel Core i7-13790F by 0.9%. It leads the Intel Core i9-13900KF by 1.1%.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores, but the AMD part has more threads due to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 does not list ECC memory support in its specifications.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part provides roughly 14% more bandwidth according to the recorded figures.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465's boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clocks differ more substantially, with Intel at 3.50 GHz and AMD at 2.00 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Gorgon Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, manufactured on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Intel's part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

The AMD chip has 10 cores and 20 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning it does not use hyper-threading. The core count difference is significant: Intel has 4 more physical cores, but AMD has 6 more threads.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD processor provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel processor provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's L3 cache is 50% larger in total capacity.

The process nodes differ by one generation step: Intel uses 3 nm, AMD uses 4 nm. The die sizes are close, with Intel at 243 mm² and AMD at 233 mm². Intel's transistor count is listed at 17,800 million, while AMD's transistor count is not recorded.

Memory support differs. The AMD chip supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel chip supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Intel's memory bandwidth is higher at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe connectivity differs. The AMD processor uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel processor uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Intel offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. AMD uses the Radeon 890M, while Intel uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segments also differ: AMD is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while Intel is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851.

The thermal design power differs significantly. AMD has a TDP of 28 watts, while Intel has a TDP of 65 watts. This reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 10 of 11 tests. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 wins only one test. The margin of victory varies widely across workloads.

The largest Intel win comes in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test. Intel scores 365 versus AMD's 126, a 65.5% advantage. This indicates a major difference in integer-heavy single-threaded workloads that stress branch prediction and arithmetic logic.

The second-largest Intel win is in floating-point math. Intel scores 120,548 versus AMD's 66,824, a 44.6% advantage. This is a substantial gap for a desktop processor over a mobile chip.

Data encryption shows a 36.1% Intel advantage. Intel scores 30,236 versus AMD's 19,308. This suggests Intel's cryptographic instruction set extensions deliver a meaningful performance edge.

The physics test shows a 32% Intel advantage. Intel scores 2,569 versus AMD's 1,747. This workload often correlates with gaming physics simulation and particle effects.

Extended instructions show a 20.6% Intel advantage. Intel scores 33,304 versus AMD's 26,441. This test typically measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput.

Multithread performance shows an 18.7% Intel advantage. Intel scores 38,706 versus AMD's 31,485. Despite having fewer threads, Intel's higher core count and clock speeds win out.

Random string sorting shows a 16.8% Intel advantage. Intel scores 49,140 versus AMD's 40,860. This tests memory access patterns and pointer chasing.

Single-thread performance shows a 5.1% Intel advantage. Intel scores 4,394 versus AMD's 4,168. The difference is modest but consistent across both recorded single-thread entries.

Data compression shows a 3.9% Intel advantage. Intel scores 400,942 versus AMD's 385,174. This is the closest Intel win on the list.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 wins the integer math test. AMD scores 107,173 versus Intel's 91,187, a 17.5% advantage. This is a notable reversal given Intel's dominance elsewhere, indicating AMD's Zen 5 integer pipeline performs strongly in this specific workload.

The overall pattern shows Intel's strengths in cryptography, floating-point, and prime number generation, while AMD wins in general integer arithmetic.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 14 |

| Threads | 20 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 16 MB | 24 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 | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

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

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 233 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $270 |

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and platform. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins the majority of benchmark tests, including the most demanding computational workloads. Its 65.5% lead in prime number finding and 44.6% lead in floating-point math indicate a strong general-purpose compute processor. The Intel chip also has a higher base clock, higher boost clock, larger caches, and higher memory bandwidth.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 is a mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP, compared to Intel's 65-watt desktop TDP. The AMD chip wins integer math by 17.5%, which shows its Zen 5 architecture handles integer-heavy code efficiently. The AMD chip also has a higher average benchmark score of 62,498 versus Intel's 48,995, despite losing most head-to-head tests. This suggests the AMD processor performs well across a broader set of workloads beyond the specific tests recorded.

Users who prioritize raw compute throughput, cryptography, and floating-point performance should look to the Intel Core Ultra 5 245. Users who need a mobile processor with lower power consumption and strong integer performance should look to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465. The Intel part is a desktop component, while the AMD part is a mobile component, so platform choice will often determine the selection.

The percentile rankings show the AMD chip at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 90th percentile. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include high-end desktop parts like the Intel Core i9-13900KF, which it leads by 1.1%. The Intel chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, which it trails by 0.5%, and the Intel Core i5-14600K, which it leads by 0.8%.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 5 245 wins in:

• Prime number generation, with a 65.5% advantage. This indicates strong single-threaded integer arithmetic.
• Floating-point math, with a 44.6% advantage. This covers scientific and engineering workloads.
• Data encryption, with a 36.1% advantage. This benefits security applications and encrypted storage.
• Physics simulation, with a 32% advantage. This applies to gaming physics and particle systems.
• Extended instructions, with a 20.6% advantage. This covers SIMD-heavy code.
• Multithread performance, with an 18.7% advantage. This applies to rendering and parallel workloads.
• Random string sorting, with a 16.8% advantage. This benefits database and text-processing tasks.
• Single-thread performance, with a 5.1% advantage. This applies to most everyday applications.
• Data compression, with a 3.9% advantage. This covers file archiving and storage workloads.

AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 wins in:

• Integer math, with a 17.5% advantage. This covers general arithmetic operations in productivity software.
• Average benchmark score, with 62,498 versus 48,995. The AMD chip ranks higher overall against all CPUs.
• Power efficiency, with a 28-watt TDP versus 65 watts. This makes it suitable for mobile platforms.
• Memory flexibility, supporting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

The Intel processor is the stronger computational performer in nearly every measured test. The AMD processor offers a higher average score across the full benchmark suite and a significantly lower power envelope, making it the appropriate choice for mobile systems where thermal and power constraints matter.