AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus enters this comparison with a substantial benchmark footprint, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This asymmetry shapes the entire analysis. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 66855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs tracked, a strong showing for a desktop processor. The AMD part, by contrast, sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, reflecting the absence of measured results rather than a statement about its capability.

The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers its most dominant results in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23, it records a multicore score of 30867, while its single-core score in the same test reaches 2261. The gap between these figures indicates strong scaling across its 18 cores and 18 threads. Cinebench R20 shows a similar pattern, with a multicore score of 18442 and a single-core score of 2603. The R15 iteration produces 4640 multicore and 328 single-core points. These numbers confirm that the Intel processor is built for parallel throughput, with multicore scores that dwarf their single-core counterparts by more than an order of magnitude.

PassMark results reinforce this orientation. The multithread score of 51596 stands well above the single-thread score of 4757, a ratio of roughly 10.8 to 1. Integer math performance reaches 125091, while floating-point math hits 162692. Data compression scores 568721, and data encryption reaches 42144. Extended instructions produce 44565 points. Random string sorting completes at 69090, and the find prime numbers test yields 486 points. Physics simulation scores 3494. These are the only measured results available in the database for either processor, so the comparison necessarily focuses on what the Intel part can demonstrate.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits in a tight cluster. It trails the AMD EPYC 4465P by 0.1%, with that rival averaging 66925 points. The Intel Xeon 6515P is 0.2% ahead with an average of 67006. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX leads by 0.9% at 67469 points. The Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a sibling part, trails by 1.1% with an average of 66159. These deltas are small, indicating that the 250K Plus is competitive with server-class and higher-tier mobile processors despite its mainstream desktop positioning. No head-to-head benchmark data exists between the two CPUs in this comparison, so all quantitative analysis derives from the Intel part's standalone scores and its rival deltas.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its transistor count is 17,800 million on a larger 243 mm² die. The smaller process node for Intel does not translate into a smaller die, since the chip carries more cores and more cache.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD part provides 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Intel part provides 18 cores and 18 threads, with no multithreading on any core. This means the Intel processor has three times the physical cores and 50% more total threads. For workloads that scale with core count, this is a decisive structural advantage. For single-threaded tasks, the Intel part's higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus 4.90 GHz gives it an edge, though the AMD part's base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 4.20 GHz means the thermal and power envelope is much lower.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Per-core L2 is three times larger on Intel, which helps with data locality. The L3 pool is nearly double on Intel, 30 MB versus 16 MB, benefiting multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores.

Memory support is similar in type but different in bandwidth. Both support DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD part delivers 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel part reaches 115.2 GB/s, a 28.6% advantage. Both support ECC memory, which matters for embedded and workstation reliability scenarios. PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Intel's newer PCIe standard doubles the per-lane bandwidth potential.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD part uses Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Neither has benchmark scores in the database, so the comparison is limited to naming and architecture. The AMD part targets the mobile market segment with a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part targets desktop with a 125 W TDP. The Intel chip is multiplier-unlocked, whereas the AMD chip is not. The Intel part has a known part number (SA4UZ) and a launch MSRP of $199, while the AMD part's MSRP is not recorded. Release dates are also far apart: the AMD part launched in April 2024, the Intel part in March 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every measured category, simply because it has measurements and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has none. But the structural data suggests where each part would claim advantages in real-world deployment.

For multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or scientific computing, the Intel part is the clear choice. Its 18 physical cores, 30 MB of L3 cache, and 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth support heavy parallel workloads. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 30867 and PassMark multithread score of 51596 indicate that the chip scales effectively across its core count. The 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms that it sits near the top of the distribution for general performance.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel part also holds an edge on paper. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz is 0.40 GHz higher than the AMD part's 4.90 GHz. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2261 and PassMark single-thread score of 4757 are strong figures for a desktop CPU. The unlocked multiplier means users can push clocks higher, though the database does not record what those overclocks might achieve.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 28 W TDP is a fraction of the Intel part's 125 W TDP. This makes it suitable for fanless or low-power embedded designs, mobile systems, and environments where heat dissipation is constrained. The 4 nm TSMC process with 25,000 million transistors on a smaller 178 mm² die suggests a dense, efficient design. The Radeon 760M integrated graphics may provide adequate visual output for embedded displays without a discrete GPU, though no benchmark data confirms this.

The AMD part also offers a 12-thread configuration from 6 cores, which can improve responsiveness in lightly threaded operating systems that expect more threads than physical cores. The 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while lower than Intel's, remains substantial for a mobile-class part. ECC memory support on both chips means neither has an advantage in reliability-critical deployments.

For market positioning, the Intel part is a desktop processor with a $199 launch MSRP, targeting mainstream performance builds. The AMD part is an embedded processor with no recorded MSRP, targeting integrated systems where power and size matter more than raw throughput. The Intel part's 18 threads without SMT may be a limitation in some legacy software that expects symmetric multithreading, but modern schedulers generally handle mixed core topologies well.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 6 | 18 |

| Threads | 12 | 18 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

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

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 30 MB shared |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | April 2024 | March 2026 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | Unknown | SA4UZ |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $199 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 66855 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 50 | 93 |

The table highlights the structural differences. The Intel part has triple the cores, a higher clock on both ends, more cache at every level, higher memory bandwidth, newer PCIe generation, and a much higher benchmark percentile. The AMD part has a lower TDP, a smaller die, more transistors per square millimeter, and an earlier release date. Both support DDR5, dual-channel memory, and ECC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has 6 cores and 12 threads. Intel offers three times the physical cores, while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The Intel part has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Intel leads by 0.70 GHz at base and 0.40 GHz at boost.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U delivers 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR5 and support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 28 W, making it suitable for low-power mobile and embedded systems. The Intel part has a TDP of 125 W, reflecting its desktop performance orientation.

Q: Which processor has better benchmark results?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no recorded benchmark scores and sits in the 50th percentile with an average score of zero.

Q: Are there any recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: No head-to-head benchmark data exists between these two processors in the database. The only measured results belong to the Intel part, which shows strong multicore and single-core scores across Cinebench and PassMark tests.