AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

The database places the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus in different product categories, and the recorded evidence is one-sided. The AMD entry is a 6-core, 12-thread mobile processor with an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile rank. The Intel entry is an 18-core, 18-thread desktop processor with a complete Cinebench and Passmark record, an average benchmark score of 66159, and a 93rd percentile rank. The AMD side has no measured scores, so this comparison is shaped by an absent benchmark record rather than by symmetrical results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table is empty. The recorded win counters are 0 for both processors, and no paired result can be examined. All benchmark numbers in this comparison come from the Intel part. Cinebench R15 multi-core returns 4305, R15 single-core returns 607, R20 multi-core returns 17941, R20 single-core returns 2532, R23 multi-core returns 42718, and R23 single-core returns 6030. Passmark returns data compression 553155, data encryption 41292, extended instructions 42880, find prime numbers 452, floating point math 159824, integer math 123030, multithread 50146, physics 3183, random string sorting 67209, and single thread 4698. The largest recorded Intel score is data compression at 553155, and the smallest is find prime numbers at 452. There is no AMD score to compare against either figure.

The Intel part's aggregate position is also recorded. Its average benchmark score of 66159 is 0.1% above the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099), 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914), 1% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855), and 1.1% below the AMD EPYC 4465P (66925). These are small gaps, which indicates that the Intel part sits in a tightly packed performance cluster near those four processors in the database's aggregate scoring. The absence of AMD scores prevents any direct numerical comparison, so the Intel part's position relative to those processors is the only aggregate benchmark context available.

Where Each One Wins

The win counters do not split because there are no paired wins. The AMD part cannot be assigned a win in any test, since no AMD test scores are recorded. The Intel part cannot be assigned a direct win over the AMD part, since the head-to-head table has no entries. The recorded data does define a workload profile for the Intel part on its own: data compression 553155, floating point math 159824, integer math 123030, and random string sorting 67209 are its strongest Passmark results, while physics 3183 and find prime numbers 452 are the weakest.

The AMD part's recorded specifications define a different feature profile. It is the only one with a Radeon 760M integrated graphics unit, the only one in the mobile segment, and the only one with a TDP of 45. The Intel part is the only desktop-segment part, the only one with an unlocked multiplier, and the only one with 18 cores. A use-case split based on benchmark wins is not possible from the recorded data. A use-case split based on features points to the AMD part for integrated-graphics and lower-power contexts and to the Intel part for high-core-count desktop contexts.

The Verdict

The benchmark evidence supports the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. It has an average benchmark score of 66159, a 93rd percentile rank, and a full set of Cinebench and Passmark scores. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has an empty benchmark list, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile rank. In any selection driven by measured performance, the Intel part is the only one with recorded support.

The Intel part also provides 18 cores versus 6, 18 threads versus 12, a boost clock of 5.30 versus 5.00, a larger shared L3 cache of 30 MB versus 16 MB, and a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. The AMD part remains the only option for an integrated Radeon 760M, and its TDP of 45 versus 125 makes it the only one suited to the lower-power mobile envelope in the database. Strictly from the data, the Intel part is the benchmark-supported choice, while the AMD part is the feature-supported choice for embedded mobile use.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists an empty benchmark list for the AMD part, an average benchmark score of 0, and a 50th percentile rank.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus's average benchmark score and percentile rank?

A: The average benchmark score is 66159, and the percentile rank among all CPUs is 93.

Q: How does the Intel part compare with its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Intel part is 0.1% above the Intel Core 9 273PQE (66099), 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (65914), 1% below the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (66855), and 1.1% below the AMD EPYC 4465P (66925).

Q: Which part has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which part includes integrated graphics?

A: The AMD part includes a Radeon 760M. The Intel part lists N/A for integrated graphics.

Q: What are the clock and TDP differences?

A: The AMD part has a base clock of 4.30, a boost clock of 5.00, and a TDP of 45. The Intel part has a base clock of 4.20, a boost clock of 5.30, and a TDP of 125.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, the two parts come from different design lines. The AMD part uses Zen 4 under the Hawk Point codename, while the Intel part uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename with its generation listed as Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake). Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the AMD part uses a 4 nm process and the Intel part uses a 3 nm process. The AMD die contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel die contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

The cache hierarchy differs at every level. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus 16 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, plus 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The AMD part integrates a Radeon 760M, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics. Both parts use DDR5 on a dual-channel memory bus and both support ECC, but the recorded memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 115.2 GB/s for Intel.

Specification Differences

The following table lists the fields where the two database entries differ. Fields not listed, such as DDR5 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, ECC support, TSMC foundry, and active production status, are identical.

| Field | AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS | Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus |

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

| Series | 8000 series | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Generation | Ryzen Embedded (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)) | Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | not recorded |

| Cores | 6 | 18 |

| Threads | 12 | 18 |

| Base clock | 4.30 | 4.20 |

| Boost clock | 5.00 | 5.30 |

| TDP | 45 | 125 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| 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 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | N/A |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2024-04-01 | 2026-03-10 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | unknown | SA4V3 |

| Launch MSRP | not listed | $184 |

| Average benchmark score | 0 | 66159 |

| Percentile vs all CPUs | 50 | 93 |

| Benchmark entries | empty | Cinebench and Passmark scores recorded |

| Nearest rivals | none listed | Core 9 273PQE, Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, EPYC 4465P |