AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty, and neither processor has individual benchmark entries in the recorded data for the AMD part. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF, however, carries a full suite of 17 benchmark scores across Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark tests.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF shows a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 36647, a single-core R23 score of 5173, and a PassMark multithread score of 43110. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4715. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, which means the head-to-head comparison relies entirely on the Intel part's measured results and the architectural differences between the two processors.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF also has an average benchmark score of 55093 across its recorded tests. This places it in the 91st percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D with an average score of 54762, which is 0.6% lower, and the Intel Core 7 253PQE with an average score of 55919, which is 1.5% higher. The Intel Core i9-14900HX scores 56004, 1.6% higher, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K scores 54053, 1.9% lower.

Since the AMD part lacks measured scores, the data cannot quantify its wins or losses directly. The winsA and winsB counters are both zero, confirming no benchmark victories are recorded for either side. The analysis below therefore compares the two processors using their specification differences and the Intel part's measured performance relative to its rivals.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the only processor in this comparison with measured benchmark results. It delivers a multi-core Cinebench R23 score of 36647 and a single-core score of 5173, with a PassMark multithread score of 43110. Its 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms strong overall performance, and its average benchmark score of 55093 sits within 2% of its nearest rivals.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has no benchmark data in the database, so its performance cannot be quantified from measurements. Its specifications show a 6-core, 12-thread design with a 3.90 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock, a 65 W TDP, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part uses 14 cores and 14 threads with a 4.20 GHz base clock and 5.20 GHz boost clock, a 125 W TDP, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

For users who require measured performance data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF is the only option with recorded results. Its multi-threaded scores suggest strong parallel workloads, while its single-thread scores indicate competitive single-core performance. The AMD part's lack of measurements leaves its performance unknown, though its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz and smaller 4 nm process may suggest potential, but the database does not confirm this.

The Intel part also carries a launch MSRP of $294. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The verdict from the data is clear: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF offers verified performance, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X remains an unmeasured alternative.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the Ryzen Embedded generation built on Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, with 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF uses the Arrow Lake-S codename and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation built on Arrow Lake architecture. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

The transistor count difference is substantial. The Intel part contains more than double the transistors of the AMD part, 17,800 million versus 8,315 million, and uses a larger die at 243 mm² versus 70.6 mm². The smaller 3 nm process node for Intel allows for denser integration, while the AMD part's 4 nm process is one generation behind in terms of node size.

Cache architecture differs notably. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has larger per-core caches, while the AMD part has a larger shared L3 pool.

The Intel part includes an integrated graphics unit marked as N/A, meaning no integrated graphics are present. The AMD part includes Radeon Graphics as its integrated graphics solution. This is a functional difference for systems that rely on the processor's built-in display output.

Memory support differs in ECC capability. The AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. Both support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, but the Intel part offers a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus the AMD part's 89.6 GB/s.

PCIe lane counts differ as well. The AMD part provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU only, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU only. The AMD part offers four additional PCIe lanes for expansion.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel part has more cores but fewer threads per core, reflecting its different core topology.

Base clock speeds differ: the AMD part runs at 3.90 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 4.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ: the AMD part reaches 5.40 GHz, while the Intel part reaches 5.20 GHz. The AMD part has a higher boost clock by 0.20 GHz, while the Intel part has a higher base clock by 0.30 GHz.

TDP ratings show a significant gap. The AMD part is rated at 65 W, while the Intel part is rated at 125 W. This nearly doubles the thermal envelope for the Intel processor.

Socket compatibility differs completely. The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Process node and foundry details differ: the AMD part uses 4 nm TSMC, while the Intel part uses 3 nm TSMC. Transistor counts are 8,315 million for AMD and 17,800 million for Intel. Die sizes are 70.6 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel.

Memory bandwidth differs: the AMD part offers 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part offers 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on AMD but absent on Intel. PCIe lanes are 24 for AMD and 20 for Intel, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part has none. Release dates differ: the AMD part was released on 2025-10-06, while the Intel part was released on 2024-10-23. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $294, while the AMD part has none recorded. Both have unlocked multipliers, and both are active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part has more than double the core count.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The AMD part boosts 0.20 GHz higher.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has ECC memory support marked as false. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X supports ECC memory as true.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has an average benchmark score of 55093 across its recorded tests. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D, scores 54762, which is 0.6% lower.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X includes Radeon Graphics as its integrated graphics solution. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF has integrated graphics marked as N/A, meaning it has none.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF uses a 3 nm process from TSMC. The Intel part uses a smaller process node.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245KF wins in measured performance categories based on its recorded benchmark scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 36647 and PassMark multithread score of 43110 indicate strong parallel processing capability, which benefits workloads like video rendering, scientific computing, and data compression. Its single-core Cinebench R23 score of 5173 and PassMark single-thread score of 4715 also show competitive single-thread performance for applications that rely on one core.

The Intel part also wins in memory bandwidth, offering 102.4 GB/s versus the AMD part's 89.6 GB/s. This advantage may help memory-intensive tasks. Its larger L1 cache per core at 192 KB and L2 cache per core at 3 MB could benefit workloads with frequent cache access patterns.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X wins in several specification areas despite lacking benchmark data. Its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz may provide a frequency advantage in single-threaded tasks, though this is not confirmed by measurements. Its lower TDP of 65 W versus 125 W indicates lower power consumption, which is relevant for embedded or thermally constrained systems. Its ECC memory support is a clear advantage for reliability-critical applications where data corruption is unacceptable.

The AMD part also offers more PCIe lanes at 24 versus 20, which may benefit systems with many expansion cards. Its integrated Radeon Graphics provide display output capability, whereas the Intel part requires a discrete GPU for any video output. Its larger shared L3 cache of 32 MB versus 24 MB may help workloads that benefit from a larger cache pool.

For embedded deployments, the AMD part's 65 W TDP and ECC support make it a suitable choice for industrial or server environments where power efficiency and data integrity matter. For desktop performance workloads, the Intel part's measured scores and higher core count make it the data-supported choice. The database records no benchmark results for the AMD part, so its actual performance remains unquantified, and any selection between the two should rely on the Intel part's verified measurements and the AMD part's specification advantages.