AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core counts of the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts up to 5.30 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS’s 5.10 GHz boost.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Intel processor supports 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD processor supports 89.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus support ECC memory.

Q: What is the release date for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS was released on 2024-04-01. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus was released on 2026-03-10.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus represent two distinct architectural approaches. The AMD part 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 part uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The transistor density difference is notable, with AMD fitting more transistors into a smaller area.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core cache allocations on the Intel side reflect its higher core count and desktop orientation.

The AMD chip is a mobile segment processor using the AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel chip is a desktop segment processor using the Intel Socket 1851. The Intel processor has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the AMD processor does not. PCIe support also differs: the AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the AMD part featuring Radeon 780M and the Intel part featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both support DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, and both support ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus shows a suite of Cinebench and PassMark scores. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmark scores recorded in the database, so all comparisons rely on the Intel data and its position relative to rivals.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30,867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 2,261 in Cinebench R23 single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 18,442 multi-core and 2,603 single-core. Cinebench R15 results show 4,640 multi-core and 328 single-core. These figures demonstrate strong multi-threaded performance, consistent with an 18-core processor. The single-core scores are also respectable, with the boost clock of 5.30 GHz contributing to the result.

PassMark results reinforce the multi-threaded strength. The processor scores 515,96 in PassMark multithread, 568,721 in data compression, 42,144 in data encryption, 44,565 in extended instructions, 486 in find prime numbers, 162,692 in floating point math, 125,091 in integer math, 3,494 in physics, 69,090 in random string sorting, and 4,757 in single-thread. The multithread score of 515,96 is particularly telling for heavily parallel workloads.

The Intel processor holds a percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 66,855. The nearest rivals provide context: the AMD EPYC 4465P averages 66,925 with a delta of -0.1 percent, the Intel Xeon 6515P averages 67,006 with a delta of -0.2 percent, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX averages 67,469 with a delta of -0.9 percent. The closest competitor from below is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which averages 66,159 with a delta of 1.1 percent. The 250K Plus sits essentially on par with server-class parts from both AMD and Intel, within a single percentage point in either direction. That places it in a tightly contested band where small benchmark variations determine ranking order.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head analysis is limited to architectural and specification differences rather than direct measured performance deltas. The data that does exist shows the Intel part competing closely with high-end EPYC and Xeon processors, which suggests it delivers strong absolute performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores but no hyperthreading-style thread doubling, so its thread count equals its core count. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to double its threads.

Base clocks differ: the AMD chip runs at 3.80 GHz, the Intel chip at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks differ as well, with the AMD chip reaching 5.10 GHz and the Intel chip reaching 5.30 GHz. TDP ratings are significantly different: the AMD part is rated at 45 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 125 watts. This reflects their different market segments, mobile versus desktop.

The process nodes differ, with AMD on 4 nm and Intel on 3 nm, both at TSMC. Transistor counts differ: 25,000 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes differ: 178 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel. Cache layouts differ entirely, with AMD using 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3, while Intel uses 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory bandwidth differs, with AMD supporting 89.6 GB/s and Intel supporting 115.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, and both support ECC. PCIe generation differs: AMD uses Gen 4, Intel uses Gen 5, both with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ: AMD has Radeon 780M, Intel has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Sockets differ: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses Socket 1851. The multiplier is locked on AMD and unlocked on Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $199, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel part has a part number of SA4UZ, while the AMD part has an unknown part number. Release dates differ: AMD on 2024-04-01, Intel on 2026-03-10.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split based on workload and platform requirements. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus delivers significantly higher multi-threaded performance, as indicated by its 18 cores and its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30,867. Its percentile rank of 93 among all CPUs places it well above the median, and its average benchmark score of 66,855 puts it within a fraction of a percent of server-class EPYC and Xeon processors.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, by contrast, has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. Its 45-watt TDP and mobile market segment suggest a focus on efficiency rather than peak multi-threaded throughput. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 5.10 GHz boost clock indicates reasonable single-thread potential, but the absence of measured data prevents any quantitative comparison.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded compute and can accommodate a 125-watt desktop processor, the Intel part is the only one with recorded performance evidence. For users who need an embedded or mobile processor with lower power consumption and ECC memory support, the AMD part offers those characteristics, though its performance relative to the Intel chip cannot be quantified from the available data.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins in every measurable performance category because it is the only one of the two with benchmark data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30,867 and PassMark multithread score of 515,96 indicate strong performance in CPU-intensive parallel workloads such as rendering, scientific computing, and data processing. Its single-thread score of 4,757 in PassMark and 2,261 in Cinebench R23 single-core show it also handles lightly threaded tasks well. Its memory bandwidth advantage of 115.2 GB/s over the AMD part’s 89.6 GB/s further supports memory-heavy workloads. Its PCIe Gen 5 support with 20 lanes provides higher bandwidth for modern peripherals compared to the AMD part’s PCIe Gen 4.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS wins in power efficiency by specification. Its 45-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Intel part’s 125-watt TDP. This makes it suitable for embedded and mobile applications where thermal and power budgets are constrained. Its smaller die size of 178 mm² compared to 243 mm² and its higher transistor count of 25,000 million versus 17,800 million suggest a denser, potentially more efficient design. The AMD part also uses the FP8 socket, which is designed for embedded mobile use cases, while the Intel part uses the desktop-oriented Socket 1851. The AMD part’s Radeon 780M integrated graphics may offer different graphics capabilities than Intel’s Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though no benchmark data exists to compare them directly. For applications that prioritize low power consumption, compact footprint, and embedded deployment, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is the appropriate choice based on specifications. For applications that prioritize raw compute throughput and have no power constraints, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the stronger option based on recorded benchmarks.