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

The Verdict

The data positions these two processors for entirely different purposes. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is a mobile-focused, power-conscious 8-core part with integrated graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop-oriented 18-core part with a high boost clock and no integrated graphics. The Intel chip holds the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD chip sits at the 50th percentile. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 66159 places it near the top of the database, trading blows with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (0.4% delta) and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus (1% delta). The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores, so its competitive position cannot be measured directly. The clear split is this: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the choice for raw multi-threaded throughput and desktop workloads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS serves systems where the 45 W TDP and integrated Radeon 780M graphics are essential.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS uses the Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Hawk Point, part of the 8000 series. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm TSMC process, with 17,800 million transistors spread across a 243 mm² die. The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) generation.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads, standard for a mobile part with simultaneous multithreading. The Intel chip has 18 cores and 18 threads, indicating no hyperthreading on any of its cores. The AMD part's cache structure uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part uses 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. The Intel chip has roughly double the L3 capacity.

Process node and foundry both come from TSMC, but the Intel part uses a smaller 3 nm node versus AMD's 4 nm. Transistor counts and die sizes move in opposite directions: AMD fits more transistors into a smaller die, suggesting a denser layout. The Intel chip's larger die with fewer transistors may reflect different design goals, possibly related to its 18-core configuration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has none. Direct comparison is therefore impossible from the database. The Intel part's numbers stand alone.

In Cinebench tests, the Intel chip scores 4305 in R15 multicore and 607 in R15 singlecore. The R20 run shows 17941 multicore and 2532 singlecore. The R23 results are 42718 multicore and 6030 singlecore. These scores reflect a strong desktop part, particularly in multicore workloads where the 18 cores can stretch their legs.

PassMark results for the Intel chip show a wide spread. The multithread score is 50146, the single-thread score is 4698. Integer math hits 123030, floating point math reaches 159824, and extended instructions score 42880. Data compression scores 553155, data encryption hits 41292, and random string sorting reaches 67209. Find prime numbers scores 452, and physics hits 3183. These numbers indicate a processor that handles encryption and compression tasks with ease, while prime number finding appears comparatively weak.

The nearest rivals for the Intel chip put its performance in context. The Intel Core 9 273PQE scores 66099, just 0.1% behind. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D scores 65914, 0.4% behind. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 66855, 1% ahead. The AMD EPYC 4465P scores 66925, 1.1% ahead. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits in a tight cluster where no rival moves more than 1.1% in either direction. The data shows a processor that is essentially tied with several high-end parts, none of which hold a commanding lead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. Base clocks differ: the AMD chip runs at 3.80 GHz, the Intel chip at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: the AMD chip reaches 5.10 GHz, the Intel chip reaches 5.30 GHz.

TDP is a major separator. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS draws 45 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus draws 125 W. That is a substantial difference in thermal design, pointing to different cooling requirements and different form factors.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. Memory bandwidth favors the Intel part: 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for embedded and workstation use.

PCIe connectivity differs. The AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe standard on the Intel side offers higher bandwidth per lane.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The AMD chip includes a Radeon 780M, while the Intel chip has no integrated graphics (N/A). This makes the AMD part self-contained for display output, while the Intel part requires a discrete GPU.

Market segment and release timing also differ. The AMD chip is a mobile part released on 2024-04-01. The Intel chip is a desktop part released on 2026-03-10. The Intel chip is listed with a launch MSRP of $184. The AMD chip has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, the AMD part does not. The Intel part has a part number of SA4V3, while the AMD part's part number is unknown. Production status is active for both.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

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

Q: Does either chip support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a Radeon 780M integrated GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: How does the Intel chip compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus shows a 0.1% delta over the Intel Core 9 273PQE, a 0.4% delta over the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, a 1% deficit to the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, and a 1.1% deficit to the AMD EPYC 4465P.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has a TDP of 45 W. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a TDP of 125 W.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins on raw performance metrics. Its 18 cores and 18 threads, combined with a 5.30 GHz boost clock, deliver the highest recorded scores in the database for this comparison. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 42718 and the PassMark multithread score of 50146 indicate a processor built for heavy parallel workloads. The 30 MB shared L3 cache and 115.2 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-intensive tasks. The unlocked multiplier adds flexibility for overclocking. The 93rd percentile ranking places it among the strongest CPUs in the database.

The Intel chip also wins on connectivity standards. Its PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes provides newer, faster I/O compared to the AMD chip's PCIe Gen 4. The higher base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.30 GHz give it an edge in single-threaded scenarios, reflected in the Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 6030.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS wins on efficiency and integration. Its 45 W TDP is less than half the Intel chip's 125 W TDP, making it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. The integrated Radeon 780M eliminates the need for a separate graphics card, which is a decisive factor for small form factor or embedded designs. The 4 nm process node with 25,000 million transistors in a 178 mm² die suggests a dense, efficient layout. Its mobile market segment and earlier release date of 2024-04-01 indicate a design aimed at portable or embedded applications.

The specification split is clear. The Intel chip dominates in core count, cache size, memory bandwidth, PCIe generation, clock speeds, and benchmark scores. The AMD chip leads in power efficiency, integrated graphics, and a smaller die size. For workloads like video rendering, scientific computing, or server-side tasks that scale with cores, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger part. For embedded systems, fanless designs, or applications where a discrete GPU is impractical, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS provides a complete package in a lower-power envelope.

The database shows a 50th percentile ranking for the AMD chip versus a 93rd percentile for the Intel chip, but that comparison comes from the AMD part having no recorded benchmark scores. The Intel chip's position among its nearest rivals, all within 1.1% of its average score, indicates a highly competitive field at the top. The AMD chip's lack of scores means its true performance cannot be assessed from this data alone. The choice between these two parts ultimately depends on whether the priority is maximum compute throughput or integrated efficiency.