AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a substantial performance advantage over the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U in the recorded benchmark data, though the comparison is limited by the fact that the AMD processor has no benchmark scores in the database. The Intel chip's average benchmark score of 75,488 places it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded scores. This means the database contains no direct measurement results for the Ryzen Embedded 8840U, leaving the Ultra 9 285 as the only processor in this comparison with verified performance data.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945, which reflects its 24 cores and 24 threads. Its single-core score in the same test reaches 6,909. In Cinebench R20, the chip records 20,556 points in multi-core and 2,901 in single-core. The older Cinebench R15 benchmark shows a multi-core result of 4,933 and a single-core score of 696.

PassMark results further illustrate the Intel part's capabilities. The multi-thread score stands at 56,602, with a single-thread score of 4,881. Integer math operations complete at a rate of 164,869, while floating-point math reaches 194,988. Data compression scores hit 602,121, and data encryption records 46,949. Extended instruction performance reaches 45,357, prime number finding scores 459, physics calculations score 3,598, and random string sorting finishes at 73,651.

The nearest rivals to the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in the database are all AMD server and workstation processors. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 75,582, which is 0.1% higher than the Ultra 9 285, making it effectively a tie. The AMD EPYC 4545P trails by a negligible 0.2% with a score of 75,373. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D and Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 both score around 75,700, placing them 0.3% ahead of the Intel chip. These deltas are within measurement noise, indicating the Ultra 9 285 competes at the same performance tier as these high-core-count server parts.

Because the Ryzen Embedded 8840U has no benchmark entries, the head-to-head comparison cannot show any wins for the AMD processor. The data suggests the Intel part dominates purely by having measurable results, but the absence of AMD scores prevents any quantitative delta between the two. The 8840U's 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with its 28-watt TDP, indicate a lower-power design aimed at embedded workloads rather than peak multi-threaded performance, but the database does not provide scores to confirm how it performs relative to the Ultra 9 285.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U reaches 5.10 GHz. The Intel part also has a lower base clock at 2.50 GHz compared to the AMD's 3.30 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts differ between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, whereas the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U has 8 cores and 16 threads. This means the Intel processor offers three times the core count and 8 more threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65 watts. The AMD part draws less than half the power of the Intel chip.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 support ECC memory, and both use DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 provides 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U offers 89.6 GB/s. The Intel chip delivers approximately 14% more bandwidth.

Q: What PCIe generation does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part supports the newer generation.

# The Verdict

The recorded data heavily favors the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in any scenario where benchmark scores matter. With a 95th percentile ranking and an average score of 75,488, this processor sits among the fastest in the database, trading blows with server-class AMD EPYC parts. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U has no benchmark scores, so the database offers no evidence of its performance level; its 50th percentile ranking is a default position rather than a measured result.

For workloads that scale with core count, such as rendering, compilation, or scientific computing, the Intel chip's 24 cores provide a clear structural advantage. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 48,945 and PassMark multi-thread score of 56,602 demonstrate strong parallel throughput. The single-thread results, including a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 6,909, show the Intel architecture also handles lightly threaded tasks well.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U, by contrast, targets embedded applications where power efficiency and compact integration matter more than raw performance. Its 28-watt TDP versus the Intel's 65 watts, combined with its 8-core design, positions it as a lower-power solution. The Radeon 780M integrated graphics in the AMD part may offer an advantage in embedded visual workloads, but the database provides no scores to quantify that. The Intel chip's Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU is also present, though again without benchmark data.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 carries a launch MSRP of $579. The AMD processor has no listed launch MSRP. The Intel chip's nearest rivals in the database are AMD EPYC server processors, not the Ryzen Embedded, which reinforces that the Ultra 9 285 competes at a high-performance tier. The Ryzen Embedded 8840U, with its mobile market segment and embedded positioning, serves a different purpose entirely.

Buyers or system integrators seeking measured performance should choose the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 based on the available data. Those requiring a low-power embedded processor with a smaller core count should consider the AMD option, but they must accept the absence of benchmark verification in this database. The Intel part also offers a higher boost clock, more memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 support, all verified in the specifications. The AMD part counters with lower power draw and a smaller die size, but without scores, its performance claims remain unverified.

# Specification Differences

The core and thread configuration differs significantly. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: the AMD chip has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, whereas the Intel chip has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Intel part boosts higher but idles at a lower base frequency.

Thermal design power separates the two clearly. The AMD processor has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 65 watts, a difference of 37 watts. The socket types are incompatible: the AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851.

Cache hierarchies show structural differences. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has larger caches at every level, with 20 MB more L3 cache.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s, though both use dual-channel DDR5. PCIe support differs by generation: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The AMD chip's market segment is mobile, while the Intel chip is a desktop part. The Intel processor has a part number of SRQD4, while the AMD processor's part number is listed as unknown.

# Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Hawk Point, part of the Ryzen Embedded 8000 series. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the codename Arrow Lake-S, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 3 nm process also at TSMC. The finer process node gives Intel a manufacturing advantage.

Transistor counts differ notably. The AMD processor contains 25,000 million transistors on a die size of 178 mm². The Intel processor contains 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm². The AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, while the Intel chip has fewer transistors spread over a larger die. The density difference reflects the architectural choices: Zen 4 uses a monolithic design for mobile, while Arrow Lake-S targets desktop performance with a larger physical footprint.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8840U includes Radeon 780M graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support ECC memory, a feature common in embedded and workstation segments. The AMD processor launched on 2024-04-01, while the Intel processor launched later on 2024-12-31. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either platform.

The architecture differences extend to memory and I/O design. Both use DDR5, but the Intel chip's higher memory bandwidth suggests a wider or faster memory controller configuration. The PCIe Gen 5 support on Intel provides double the data rate per lane compared to AMD's Gen 4, which matters for high-throughput peripherals like GPUs or NVMe drives. The AMD chip's smaller die size and lower TDP indicate a design optimized for power-constrained environments, while the Intel chip's larger die and higher power budget target sustained performance.

The process node difference, 3 nm versus 4 nm, gives Intel a potential efficiency advantage per transistor, but the AMD chip's lower TDP and mobile market segment show a different design priority. The Intel part's 24 cores without hyperthreading (24 threads) suggest a hybrid or performance-core arrangement, while the AMD part's 8 cores with 16 threads use simultaneous multithreading. These architectural choices reflect distinct target workloads: the Intel chip for desktop compute, the AMD chip for embedded systems where power and footprint are constrained.