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

AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U and Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus occupy different corners of the processor market, but the benchmark data recorded for the Intel part allows for a direct comparison of what each platform delivers. The AMD chip is a 6-core, 12-thread mobile-oriented processor built on Zen 4, while the Intel part is an 18-core, 18-thread desktop processor from the Arrow Lake Refresh family. The database contains no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U, so all performance analysis below is based on the recorded scores for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus and its listed rivals. The Intel processor sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs tracked, with an average benchmark score of 66159, placing it in strong company.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, a direct numerical comparison of the two processors cannot be made. The database shows zero benchmark entries for the AMD part, meaning there is no Cinebench, PassMark, or any other measured performance data to place against the Intel chip. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, by contrast, has a full set of 17 recorded scores across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and multiple PassMark tests.

The Intel processor delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42718 and a single-core score of 6030. In Cinebench R20, it records 17941 multicore and 2532 single-core. Cinebench R15 shows 4305 multicore and 607 single-core. PassMark results for the Intel part include a multithread score of 50146, a single-thread score of 4698, integer math at 123030, floating point math at 159824, data compression at 553155, data encryption at 41292, extended instructions at 42880, find prime numbers at 452, physics at 3183, and random string sorting at 67209.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, based on average benchmark scores, are the Intel Core 9 273PQE with an average score of 66099 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D with 65914 (0.4% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus with 66855 (1% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 4465P with 66925 (1.1% ahead). The data shows the 250KF Plus sits in a tight cluster, within roughly one percentage point of all four rivals. Its own average score of 66159 is nearly identical to the Core 9 273PQE, and it trails the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus and EPYC 4465P by a single percentage point.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U offers no measured benchmark wins in the database, so its strengths must be inferred from its physical and architectural specifications. It uses a 28 W TDP, which indicates a power-efficient design suited for embedded or mobile applications. Its Radeon 760M integrated graphics provide display output without a separate GPU, a capability absent from the Intel part, which lists integrated graphics as N/A. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, as does the Intel processor, but the AMD part's lower power envelope and integrated graphics make it suited for compact or always-on systems where discrete graphics are unnecessary.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, with its 18 cores and 18 threads, dominates in raw parallel workload capacity. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42718 and PassMark multithread score of 50146 indicate strong performance in threaded applications such as rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation. The single-thread score of 4698 in PassMark and 6030 in Cinebench R23 show it also handles lightly threaded tasks well. The unlocked multiplier on the Intel part allows frequency adjustment, and its 5.30 GHz boost clock gives it headroom for demanding single-core workloads. The Intel chip is a desktop part with a 125 W TDP, indicating it expects robust cooling and a power supply capable of sustained high load.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The cache layout is 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The socket is AMD Socket FP8, and the part belongs to the 8000 series.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename under the Ultra 5 generation label. It is built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The cache is significantly larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, a notable increase over the AMD part. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU, one generation ahead of the AMD chip's Gen 4. The Intel socket is Socket 1851, and the part has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The Intel chip has no integrated graphics, while the AMD part includes Radeon 760M.

Both processors support ECC memory and use DDR5, but the Intel part offers higher memory bandwidth and more cache at every level. The Intel chip uses fewer transistors despite its larger die, which reflects the different core counts and architectural priorities. The AMD part's smaller 4 nm node and lower transistor count suggest a focus on efficiency, while the Intel part's larger die and 3 nm process prioritize maximum performance.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists zero benchmark entries for the AMD part, so no performance scores are available for comparison.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus average benchmark score?

A: The recorded average benchmark score is 66159, placing it at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus compare to its closest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PQE?

A: The Core 9 273PQE has an average score of 66099, which is 0.1% behind the 250KF Plus. The two processors are effectively tied in the recorded data.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus have integrated graphics?

A: No. The database lists integrated graphics as N/A for this processor, meaning it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus both list ECC memory as true.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 115.2 GB/s. The Intel part provides roughly 25.6 GB/s more bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz for the AMD part and 4.20 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for the AMD part and 5.30 GHz for the Intel part. TDP is 28 W for the AMD part and 125 W for the Intel part.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. Cache sizes differ substantially: the AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part and 115.2 GB/s for the Intel part. PCIe generation differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The AMD part includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics, while the Intel part has N/A for integrated graphics. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The AMD part is listed with a mobile market segment, while the Intel part is desktop. The Intel part has a recorded part number of SA4V3 and a launch MSRP of $184. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel part was released on 2026-03-10, while the AMD part was released on 2024-04-01.

The Verdict

The recorded data strongly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus for any workload that benefits from multiple cores. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with a 42718 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 50146 PassMark multithread score, place it in the top 7% of all CPUs tracked. The single-thread performance is also strong, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4698 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6030. The Intel part's 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth and Gen 5 PCIe connectivity give it a platform advantage for memory-intensive and expansion-heavy desktop builds. The unlocked multiplier allows tuning for users who want to push beyond stock clocks.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has no benchmark data in the database, so its performance cannot be quantified. Its specification sheet shows a 28 W TDP, integrated Radeon 760M graphics, and ECC memory support, which point toward embedded or compact systems where power draw and physical footprint matter more than peak throughput. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 4.90 GHz boost clock is adequate for general-purpose computing but does not approach the Intel part's core count or clock speed. The AMD part's 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and Gen 4 PCIe are sufficient for its intended market segment but trail the Intel part's capabilities.

For a desktop user prioritizing multi-threaded performance, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the clear choice based on the recorded scores. For an embedded or mobile application requiring low power consumption and integrated graphics, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8640U has the specifications that fit, though its actual performance remains unmeasured in the database. The Intel part's launch MSRP of $184 places it in the mid-range desktop category, while the AMD part's lack of a recorded price and mobile orientation make them different tools for different purposes. The data supports selecting the Intel part for raw compute and the AMD part for efficiency-focused designs.