AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K shows a dominant performance profile across every measured workload category. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X, by contrast, has no individual benchmark scores recorded in the database, with an average benchmark score of zero and a percentile ranking of 50 among all CPUs. This creates an unusual comparison where the Intel part carries the full weight of empirical testing data, while the AMD part appears only with its architectural specifications and no run scores.

Focusing strictly on the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s measured results, the multi-core numbers are substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the chip scores 42,522 points, while the single-core test returns 2,377 points. The Cinebench R20 run shows 24,003 points in multi-core and 3,388 in single-core, and the older Cinebench R15 test yields 6,494 multi-core and 359 single-core. Geekbench results follow the same pattern: 26,702 in multi-core and 2,870 in single-core. These scores place the processor at the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 83,807.

The Passmark suite adds granularity. Multi-thread performance reaches 67,260, while single-thread performance sits at 5,087. Integer math completes at 172,379, floating point math at 224,324, and extended instructions at 62,277. Data compression scores 790,052, data encryption 57,745, and random string sorting 94,927. Physics processing records 3,938, and find prime numbers returns 541. These are the only recorded measurements available for this head-to-head, and they all belong to the Intel side.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has no benchmark entries, the win count stands at zero for the AMD part and one for the Intel part in terms of having any measurable data. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K’s nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus with an average score of 84,003 (0.2% higher), the AMD EPYC 4584PX at 83,090 (0.9% lower), the AMD EPYC 9135 at 82,980 (1.0% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7F72 at 85,072 (1.5% higher). The 285K sits within a tight band of these server and workstation-class parts, confirming that its multi-core throughput aligns with high-end EPYC silicon rather than typical desktop processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K wins in every workload category that has recorded data. Multi-threaded rendering, general compute, encryption, compression, and physics simulations all show strong scores. The single-thread results are equally competitive, with the 5,087 Passmark single-thread score and the 2,870 Geekbench single-core result indicating solid per-core performance for lightly threaded tasks. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 359 and R20 score of 3,388 reinforce this pattern across different rendering engines.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X cannot claim a win in any measured benchmark because no scores exist for it. Its advantage, if any, would have to come from its architectural configuration rather than from empirical testing. The chip uses 6 cores and 12 threads, which is a much leaner configuration than the Intel part’s 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD part’s base clock of 3.90 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz are close to the Intel part’s 3.70 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost, but the core count disparity is massive. In workloads that scale with core count, the Intel part would have a clear structural advantage. In lightly threaded workloads, the clock speeds are similar enough that the outcome would depend on instructions per clock and memory latency, neither of which is captured in the available data.

The database’s percentile fields tell a one-sided story. The Intel part sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile. That 46-percentile gap reflects the absence of benchmark data for the AMD chip, but it also indicates that the Intel chip’s measured scores place it near the top of the entire database. The AMD chip’s median percentile is a placeholder rather than a measured result, since its average benchmark score is zero.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses the Granite Ridge codename, part of the 9000 series, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses the Arrow Lake-S codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2, built on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. Its transistor count is 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die. The Intel die is roughly 3.4 times larger in area and holds more than twice the transistor count.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. Per-core cache is significantly larger on the Intel side, while the shared L3 is only 4 MB larger in absolute terms. The AMD part has no 3D V-Cache option listed, and neither part has a total L3 figure beyond the shared amount.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, with dual-channel buses. The AMD part lists memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part lists 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for embedded and workstation use. PCIe connectivity shows the AMD part with Gen 5 and 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part has Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units.

The AMD part is designated as Ryzen Embedded, which suggests a focus on industrial and edge applications, though its socket is AMD Socket AM5 and its market segment is listed as Desktop. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851 and is also listed as Desktop. Both have unlocked multipliers, indicating overclocking support. The AMD part’s part number is 100-000001405E, while the Intel part’s is SRQD5. The AMD part was released on October 6, 2025, and the Intel part on October 23, 2024, making the Intel chip nearly a year older.

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $589, which is the only price figure in the database. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. Both parts are marked as Active in production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K is the only part with recorded multi-core scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 42,522, and its Cinebench R20 multi-core score is 24,003. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X has no recorded benchmark scores, so no direct comparison is possible from the data.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading and runs one thread per core.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD part has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. The Intel part boosts 0.30 GHz higher, while the AMD part has a 0.20 GHz higher base clock.

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Intel part has more cache per core: 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, versus 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 for the AMD part. For shared L3, the Intel part has 36 MB versus 32 MB for the AMD part.

Q: What is the process node and die size difference?

A: The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with an 8,315 million transistor count and a 70.6 mm² die. The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC with a 17,800 million transistor count and a 243 mm² die.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part has an average benchmark score of 83,807. It trails the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus by 0.2% and the AMD EPYC 7F72 by 1.5%. It leads the AMD EPYC 4584PX by 0.9% and the AMD EPYC 9135 by 1.0%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9600X uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K uses 24 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.40 GHz versus 5.70 GHz. TDP is 65 watts for the AMD part and 125 watts for the Intel part.

Sockets differ: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel Socket 1851. Codename is Granite Ridge for AMD and Arrow Lake-S for Intel. Process node is 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, both at TSMC. Transistor count is 8,315 million versus 17,800 million, and die size is 70.6 mm² versus 243 mm².

Cache configurations differ per core and shared. L1 is 80 KB per core for AMD and 192 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD and 3 MB per core for Intel. L3 is 32 MB shared for AMD and 36 MB shared for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 102.4 GB/s for Intel. PCIe lanes are 24 for AMD and 20 for Intel, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics differ: Radeon Graphics for AMD versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for Intel. Release dates are October 6, 2025, for AMD and October 23, 2024, for Intel. Launch MSRP is absent for AMD and $589 for Intel. Part numbers are 100-000001405E for AMD and SRQD5 for Intel. Generation labels are Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5, Granite Ridge) for AMD and Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake) for Intel. The Intel part has a recorded average benchmark score of 83,807 and a 96th percentile ranking, while the AMD part has a zero average score and a 50th percentile ranking.