AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data does not include a direct head-to-head benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285. The database shows no matching test entries for these two processors side by side, so a win-by-win breakdown across identical workloads cannot be constructed from the available measurements.

What the database does provide is a full benchmark profile for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, along with its percentile ranking and nearest rival comparisons. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmark scores recorded, meaning its performance can only be discussed through its architectural characteristics rather than measured results.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 shows strong results across Cinebench and Passmark workloads. In Cinebench R23, the multicore score reaches 48945, while the singlecore score sits at 6909. For Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 20556 with a singlecore score of 2901. Cinebench R15 produces a multicore score of 4933 and a singlecore score of 696. These numbers indicate a processor that handles heavily threaded rendering workloads with considerable headroom, as the multicore scores scale far beyond what the singlecore figures alone would suggest.

Passmark results for the Intel part reinforce this pattern. The multithread score is 56602, with floating point math at 194988, integer math at 164869, and extended instructions at 45357. Data compression reaches 602121, while data encryption scores 46949. Random string sorting comes in at 73651, and find prime numbers posts 459. The singlethread score is 4881, and physics reaches 3598. The gap between multithread and singlethread Passmark scores, roughly 11.6 times, points to a design where core count and parallelism dominate the performance profile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, the database places it at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 75488. The closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 8224P with an average score of 75582, which is 0.1% higher. The AMD EPYC 4545P scores 75373, which is 0.2% lower. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D posts 75716, 0.3% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 scores 75738, also 0.3% higher. These delta percentages are all within a fraction of a percent, indicating the Intel part sits in a tightly contested performance band where small score differences separate the top tier.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no recorded benchmark scores, the head-to-head section cannot offer direct numerical comparisons. The Intel part's measurements stand alone, and the AMD part's capabilities remain undefined in the database. Any claim about which processor wins a specific test would require fabricated data, which the database does not support.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename. These are different silicon generations with different design priorities.

The manufacturing process differs as well. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm node at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm node, also at TSMC. The smaller node for the Intel processor suggests a denser transistor layout, though the transistor counts tell a more complex story. The AMD chip contains 25,000 million transistors on a die size of 178 mm². The Intel chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a larger die of 243 mm². So the AMD processor packs more transistors into a smaller area, while the Intel processor spreads fewer transistors across a larger physical footprint.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part has three times the cores but does not use simultaneous multithreading, whereas the AMD part uses SMT to double its thread count from 8 to 16. This means the Intel part relies on raw core count, while the AMD part extracts more work per core through threading.

Clock speeds follow different patterns. The AMD processor has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The AMD part starts higher but boosts lower, while the Intel part starts lower but reaches a higher peak. The 0.50 GHz boost advantage for Intel could matter in lightly threaded workloads, though the AMD part's higher base clock suggests more consistent sustained performance at lower loads.

Cache hierarchies are built differently. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Per core, the Intel cache is larger in every level, and the total L3 is more than double. For workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 16 MB, the Intel part's 36 MB L3 could reduce memory traffic.

Memory support shows both parts use DDR5 with dual-channel buses. The AMD processor has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel processor reaches 102.4 GB/s. The Intel part has a 12.8 GB/s bandwidth advantage. Both support ECC memory, which matters for embedded and workstation reliability scenarios.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Gen 5 doubles the per-lane bandwidth, so the Intel processor can feed high-speed devices like GPUs or NVMe drives at faster rates, even with the same lane count.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD processor includes the Radeon 780M, while the Intel processor includes the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The database does not provide benchmark scores for either GPU, so any performance comparison would be speculative.

The thermal design power differs, with the AMD part at 45 watts and the Intel part at 65 watts. The AMD processor fits into a lower power envelope, which aligns with its mobile market segment. The Intel processor targets the desktop segment and accepts a higher TDP for its larger core count.

Where Each One Wins

Without benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, the database cannot assign wins to either processor in specific use cases. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has measurable results, and those results indicate strengths in heavily threaded workloads. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 48945 Cinebench R23 multicore score and a 56602 Passmark multithread score, suggest tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific computation that scale across many cores would see substantial throughput. The 36 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-intensive applications that repeatedly access large datasets.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS offers architectural features that could benefit different scenarios, though the database records no performance data to confirm this. Its 16 threads from 8 cores with SMT, a 5.10 GHz boost clock, and a 45 watt TDP suggest it might fit power-constrained mobile or embedded environments. The Radeon 780M integrated graphics could handle display output and light GPU tasks without a discrete card, which matters for compact systems. The 4 nm process with 25,000 million transistors in a 178 mm² die indicates a dense design that could deliver competitive per-watt performance, but without measured scores, this remains inference from specifications rather than verified results.

The Intel part's singlecore scores, such as 6909 in Cinebench R23 and 4881 in Passmark singlethread, show it can handle lightly threaded tasks well. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock likely contributes to this. For applications like web browsing, office productivity, or legacy software that uses only one or two threads, the Intel processor would not appear disadvantaged based on its recorded numbers.

The Verdict

The data in the database supports a clear verdict for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, because it has recorded benchmark results while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS does not. The Intel processor ranks at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 75488. Its nearest rivals, all AMD EPYC or Ryzen PRO parts, sit within 0.3% of that score, confirming it belongs in the top tier of desktop processors.

For users who need maximum multicore throughput, the Intel part's 48945 Cinebench R23 multicore score and 24 cores make it a strong choice. The 36 MB L3 cache and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth support sustained heavy workloads. The 65 watt TDP is higher than the AMD part's 45 watts, but the desktop market segment can accommodate that power draw.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS cannot be recommended or dismissed based on recorded data, because the database contains no benchmark scores for it. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, 5.10 GHz boost clock, and 45 watt TDP suggest it targets a different market segment: mobile and embedded systems where power efficiency and compact integration matter more than raw core count. The Radeon 780M integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 4 support fit that profile. But without measurements, the database cannot verify its real-world performance.

The Intel part's launch MSRP is $579. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel launch MSRP is stated once here for reference, and no further pricing discussion follows.

FAQ

Q: What is the core count difference between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The AMD processor has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel processor has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part uses no simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count.

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 8845HS boosts to 5.10 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the Intel part.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Intel cache is larger at every level.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 102.4 GB/s. Both use DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses, and both support ECC memory.

Q: What PCIe generation does each processor support?

A: The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Gen 5 provides higher per-lane bandwidth.

Q: What benchmark scores are recorded for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285?

A: The database shows Cinebench R23 multicore at 48945 and singlecore at 6909, Cinebench R20 multicore at 20556 and singlecore at 2901, and Cinebench R15 multicore at 4933 and singlecore at 696. Passmark results include multithread at 56602, singlethread at 4881, floating point math at 194988, and integer math at 164869.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285, based on the recorded data:

• Series: AMD 8000 series versus Intel Core Ultra Series 2
• Cores: 8 versus 24
• Threads: 16 versus 24
• Base Clock: 3.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.10 GHz versus 5.60 GHz
• TDP: 45 watts versus 65 watts
• Socket: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel Socket 1851
• Architecture: Zen 4 versus Arrow Lake
• Codename: Hawk Point versus Arrow Lake-S
• Generation: Ryzen Embedded (Zen 4, Hawk Point) versus Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 3 nm
• Transistors: 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 36 MB shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 lanes versus Gen 5, 20 lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 780M versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU
• Market Segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Part Number: unknown versus SRQD4
• Launch MSRP: none versus $579
• Percentile vs All CPUs: 50 versus 95
• Average Benchmark Score: 0 versus 75488