AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is one-sided, as the database contains recorded scores for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus but no benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U. The Intel part delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42,718 and a single-core score of 6,030. In Cinebench R20, it records 17,941 multicore and 2,532 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 4,305 multicore and 607 single-core. PassMark tests confirm the pattern: multithread score of 50,146, single-thread score of 4,698, integer math at 123,030, floating point math at 159,824, and extended instructions at 42,880. Data compression reaches 553,155, data encryption hits 41,292, and random string sorting scores 67,209. The physics test records 3,183, and prime number finding scores 452.

Because the AMD side has no recorded benchmarks, no direct delta percentages or win counts can be calculated. The Intel processor sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 66,159. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66,099 (0.1% higher score), the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914 (0.4% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66,855 (1% higher), and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66,925 (1.1% higher). This places the 250KF Plus essentially at parity with those high-end parts, within a 1.1% band of performance. The data indicates that the Intel chip competes at the top tier of desktop processors, while the AMD embedded part cannot be positioned from measurements alone due to the absence of scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, part of the 8000 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, codename Arrow Lake Refresh, and uses a 3 nm process also from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel chip has a smaller transistor count but a larger physical die, indicating a different layout and possibly different transistor density characteristics.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The AMD part provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part provides 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel chip has no hyperthreading, meaning one thread per core, while the AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. Cache hierarchies differ as well. The AMD processor offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has substantially more cache at every level, which often benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support shows both use DDR5 with dual-channel buses, but the Intel part has a higher peak memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs by generation: the AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part is newer, with a release date of 2026-03-10, while the AMD part released on 2024-04-01. The Intel processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD chip includes a Radeon 780M, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is clearly positioned for desktop performance workloads. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with a 5.30 GHz boost clock and 30 MB of L3 cache, support heavily threaded tasks like rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation. The recorded Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42,718 and PassMark multithread score of 50,146 indicate strong parallel throughput. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which is a practical advantage for users who want to push beyond stock settings. The lack of integrated graphics means a discrete GPU is mandatory, but that is typical for high-end desktop builds.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U, by contrast, targets embedded and mobile applications. Its 28 W TDP is far lower than the Intel part's 125 W, making it suitable for thermally constrained environments. The integrated Radeon 780M provides graphics capability without a separate card, which simplifies system design for compact or embedded platforms. The AMD chip's 8 cores and 16 threads with 16 MB of L3 cache still offer respectable multithreading for its power class, and its 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures responsiveness in single-threaded tasks. The 4 nm process and 178 mm² die suggest a focus on efficiency. Without benchmark scores for the AMD part, the data cannot confirm specific wins, but the architectural differences indicate that the Intel chip wins on raw performance and the AMD chip wins on power efficiency and integration.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel processor supports ECC memory, as does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U uses TSMC's 4 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses TSMC's 3 nm process.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each CPU provide, and at what generation?

A: The AMD chip provides 20 lanes of Gen 4 PCIe (CPU only), and the Intel chip provides 20 lanes of Gen 5 PCIe (CPU only).

Q: Which processor has an integrated GPU?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U includes a Radeon 780M integrated GPU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for both parts?

A: The AMD chip boosts up to 5.10 GHz, and the Intel chip boosts up to 5.30 GHz.

Q: Is the Intel part's multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U is locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. Core count: 8 cores for AMD versus 18 cores for Intel. Thread count: 16 threads for AMD versus 18 threads for Intel. Base clock: 3.30 GHz for AMD versus 4.20 GHz for Intel. Boost clock: 5.10 GHz for AMD versus 5.30 GHz for Intel. TDP: 28 W for AMD versus 125 W for Intel. Socket: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel Socket 1851. Architecture: Zen 4 for AMD versus null (Arrow Lake Refresh) for Intel. Codename: Hawk Point versus Arrow Lake Refresh. Process node: 4 nm versus 3 nm. Transistor count: 25,000 million versus 17,800 million. Die size: 178 mm² versus 243 mm². L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. L3 cache: 16 MB shared versus 30 MB shared. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. PCIe generation: Gen 4 versus Gen 5. Integrated graphics: Radeon 780M versus N/A. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Release date: 2024-04-01 versus 2026-03-10. Launch MSRP: none listed for AMD, $184 for Intel. Multiplier: locked versus unlocked. Part number: unknown for AMD, SA4V3 for Intel.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split by use case. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the choice for desktop builders who need maximum performance in multithreaded and single-threaded workloads, as evidenced by its strong Cinebench and PassMark scores, 18 cores, 5.30 GHz boost, and 30 MB of L3 cache. Its 93rd percentile ranking and proximity to top-tier rivals like the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D confirm it belongs in high-end desktop systems. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking. The lack of integrated graphics is a non-issue for users who will pair it with a discrete GPU.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U serves a different purpose. With a 28 W TDP, integrated Radeon 780M graphics, and a compact 178 mm² die, it is built for embedded systems, mobile devices, and power-sensitive deployments. Its 8 cores and 16 threads with Zen 4 architecture provide a solid performance-per-watt profile, and ECC memory support suits reliability-focused applications. The absence of benchmark scores in the database means no direct performance comparison is possible, but the architectural data indicates that the AMD part is not intended to compete with the Intel chip on raw throughput. It wins on efficiency and integration, while the Intel part wins on performance and overclocking headroom. Choose the Intel chip for a performance desktop, and the AMD chip for embedded or low-power designs.