AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall margin in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, which claims 10 of the 11 shared benchmark wins. The single AMD victory comes in integer math, where the Ryzen AI Embedded P185 scores 117832 against 98854 for the Intel part, a 19.2% advantage. That result indicates the AMD processor’s Zen 5 and Zen 5c core mix handles integer workloads with notably higher throughput per clock or per thread arrangement.

Every other head-to-head test favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, often by substantial margins. Data compression sees Intel score 460123 versus 374429, a gap of 18.6%. Data encryption is even more one-sided: Intel delivers 33381 against AMD’s 19612, a 41.2% deficit for the AMD chip. Extended instruction throughput follows the same pattern, with Intel at 37912 and AMD at 26544, a 30% difference. Prime number finding shows the largest proportional gap, 416 for Intel versus 129 for AMD, meaning Intel completes the task 69% faster. Floating point math also heavily favors Intel, 131546 versus 70587, which is a 46.3% lead.

Multithreaded performance, as measured by PassMark, puts Intel ahead at 43110 versus 31817, a 26.2% margin. Physics simulation scores show Intel at 2998 and AMD at 1772, a 40.9% difference. Random string sorting sees Intel at 55206 versus 40557, a 26.5% lead. Single-thread performance, measured twice in the database with identical results, gives Intel 4715 and AMD 3977, a 15.7% advantage for the Intel part.

The Intel processor’s average benchmark score of 55093 places it at the 91st percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD chip’s average of 62839 sits at the 93rd percentile. The discrepancy between the head-to-head results and the overall average scores reflects the different benchmark suites each processor was tested with. The Intel part’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D at 54762, a 0.6% gap, and the Intel Core 7 253PQE at 55919, a 1.5% gap. The AMD part’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX at 62738, a 0.2% gap, and the Intel Core i7-13790F at 63080, a 0.4% gap.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF dominates across most computational categories. Its wins in data compression, encryption, and extended instructions point to strong execution of modern instruction sets and memory-bound operations. The 41.2% encryption margin and 30% extended instruction margin suggest the Intel architecture handles cryptographic and SIMD-style workloads with higher efficiency. Floating point math, with a 46.3% lead, indicates a clear advantage for scientific computing, physics simulation, and any workload relying on FP32 or FP64 arithmetic. The physics score, 2998 versus 1772, reinforces this conclusion, as physics engines typically depend heavily on floating point throughput.

Prime number finding, where Intel leads by 69%, is often limited by integer division and branch prediction. The Intel part’s 14 cores, each with larger L1 and L2 caches, contribute to this result. Multithreaded performance, with Intel ahead by 26.2%, reflects the combination of higher core count and higher boost clock. Random string sorting, a memory-access-heavy test, gives Intel a 26.5% win, likely due to its higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 wins only in integer math, with a 19.2% margin. This suggests that the Zen 5 and Zen 5c core design excels at integer arithmetic operations, which appear in general-purpose computing, database queries, and some rendering tasks. However, that single win does not offset the nine other defeats in the head-to-head suite. The AMD part’s 24 threads versus Intel’s 14 threads does not translate into a multithreaded win in this data, indicating that thread count alone does not determine performance.

For workloads that emphasize integer throughput per thread, such as certain financial simulations or integer-heavy compilers, the AMD part shows a measurable edge. For everything else in the recorded benchmarks, the Intel part delivers higher scores. The data does not include gaming-specific tests, but the single-thread and physics results favor Intel, which often correlates with gaming performance in desktop processors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 uses the Gorgon Point codename with a generation labeled Ryzen AI Embedded, built on a Zen 5 and Zen 5c core mix. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, meaning each core supports two threads via simultaneous multithreading. The process node is 4 nm from TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3 total.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename. It has 14 cores and 14 threads, with no hyperthreading support, so each core handles a single thread. The process node is 3 nm from TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and a transistor count of 17,800 million. The cache layout uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3.

The core count difference matters: Intel has two more physical cores, while AMD has ten more threads due to SMT. In the multithreaded benchmark, Intel still wins by 26.2%, which indicates that the two extra cores and higher clock speeds outweigh AMD’s thread count advantage. The L3 cache difference is substantial, 24 MB shared on Intel versus 16 MB total on AMD, which helps with data reuse in larger working sets.

The memory controllers differ as well. AMD supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but Intel’s peak bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s exceeds AMD’s 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the AMD part but not on the Intel part. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, giving the Intel platform higher bandwidth for expansion devices.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The AMD part includes a Radeon 890M iGPU, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics, designated N/A. This makes the AMD processor suitable for fanless or embedded systems needing display output without a discrete GPU. The Intel part requires a separate graphics card.

The socket and platform targets also differ. AMD uses Socket FP8, a mobile-oriented package, and the market segment is listed as Mobile. Intel uses Socket 1851, a desktop platform, with the market segment listed as Desktop. Production status for both is Active, but the release dates differ: AMD’s is 2026-02-28, while Intel’s is 2024-10-23.

Specification Differences

The base clock differs significantly: AMD starts at 2.00 GHz, while Intel starts at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.10 GHz and Intel at 5.20 GHz. The higher base clock on Intel means it maintains higher frequency even under sustained loads, which explains some of the performance margins.

Thermal design power shows a wide gap: AMD is rated at 28 watts, while Intel is rated at 125 watts. This makes the AMD part far more power-efficient on paper, suitable for embedded and mobile designs with limited cooling. The Intel part targets desktop systems with robust cooling solutions.

The multiplier is unlocked on the Intel part, allowing overclocking, while the AMD part has a locked multiplier. The Intel part has a part number of SRQCY, while the AMD part’s part number is listed as unknown. The launch MSRP for Intel is $294, stated once here as the recorded value.

Process node and foundry are the same for both (TSMC), but the node size differs: 4 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel. Die size is slightly larger on Intel at 243 mm² versus 233 mm² on AMD. Transistor count is only listed for Intel at 17,800 million, with no figure for AMD.

Memory support differs in the type of memory: AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, Intel supports DDR5 only. ECC memory is available on AMD, not on Intel. PCIe generation and lane count differ: AMD has Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel has Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The cache sizes differ across all levels: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core versus 192 KB on Intel, 1 MB L2 per core versus 3 MB on Intel, and 16 MB L3 total versus 24 MB shared on Intel. These larger caches on Intel contribute to its wins in compression and sorting tests, where data locality matters.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: Does the AMD processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF does not.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF scores 416 versus 129 for the AMD part, a 69% difference.

Q: How many threads does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 supports 24 threads from 12 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF supports 14 threads from 14 cores, with no hyperthreading.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 includes a Radeon 890M integrated GPU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the Intel processor’s launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a launch MSRP of $294.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 has 89.6 GB/s.