AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark records for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X against the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F. The AMD part has an empty benchmark array, meaning no scores were recorded for any test in the Cinebench or PassMark suites. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F, by contrast, has 17 recorded benchmark scores spanning multi-core, single-core, and specialized workloads.

The Core Ultra 5 225F achieves a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16,467 and a single-core score of 1,893. In Cinebench R20, it records 11,059 multi-core and 1,561 single-core. The R15 run produces 2,660 multi-core and 287 single-core. PassMark results include a multi-thread score of 31,004, a single-thread score of 4,397 (reported twice in the dataset under slightly different test names), data compression at 310,843, and data encryption at 22,648.

Since the AMD processor has no recorded benchmarks, direct numeric comparison is impossible from the database. The Intel part's average benchmark score stands at 37,313, placing it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, are the Intel Core i9-13900HK at 37,425 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H at 37,161 (0.4% lower), the Intel Core i7-13700 at 37,135 (0.5% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 160 at 37,117 (0.5% lower). This clustering suggests the Core Ultra 5 225F sits in a tightly contested performance tier where the top four comparable processors fall within a 0.8% band of each other.

The absence of AMD benchmark data means the analysis must lean on architectural and specification comparisons, which are fully documented, while acknowledging that performance measurements for the Ryzen Embedded 9900X remain unrecorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the only processor in this pairing with measurable wins, because it is the only one with benchmark data. It records 16,467 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is a demanding all-core workload. Its Cinebench R20 multi-core result of 11,059 and R15 multi-core result of 2,660 show consistent scaling across the three Cinebench versions. The single-core trajectory, from 287 in R15 to 1,561 in R20 and 1,893 in R23, indicates strong per-thread performance that holds up as the test suite evolves.

PassMark workload splits reveal specific strengths. Integer math scores 66,417, floating point math scores 92,554, and extended instructions score 28,027. The data compression score of 310,843 far exceeds the encryption score of 22,648, suggesting the processor handles compression algorithms considerably better than encryption tasks. Random string sorting produces 37,325, physics simulation scores 2,430, and prime number finding scores 352.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no recorded wins because no benchmark scores exist. Its specification sheet, however, suggests theoretical advantages in core count (12 versus 10), thread count (24 versus 10), and boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 4.90 GHz). These are untested parameters in the database, so any claim of superiority remains speculative. The data only confirms where the Intel part wins, not where the AMD part might.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses the Granite Ridge codename with a Zen 5 microarchitecture, part of the Ryzen Embedded line within the 9000 series. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake-S codename with an Arrow Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 2. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but at different process nodes: the AMD chip uses 4 nm, while the Intel chip uses 3 nm.

Transistor counts differ modestly. The AMD processor integrates 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die layout with each die measuring 70.6 mm², for a combined die size of 141.2 mm². The Intel processor integrates 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. This means Intel packs more transistors into a larger monolithic die, while AMD spreads a slightly smaller transistor count across two smaller chiplets.

Cache organization reflects the distinct design philosophies. The AMD chip allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a 64 MB shared L3 pool. The Intel chip allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 20 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has over three times the L3 capacity, which can benefit workloads with large working sets, while the Intel part has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

The AMD processor includes Radeon Graphics as integrated graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F lists integrated graphics as N/A, meaning no iGPU is present. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. Both support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, but the Intel chip has a higher rated memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD.

AMD provides 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides 20 Gen 5 lanes. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, whereas the Intel processor has a locked multiplier. The AMD part uses Socket AM5, the Intel part uses Socket 1851. The Intel chip launched on 2025-01-06, roughly nine months before the AMD chip's release date of 2025-10-06.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts diverge sharply: the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The AMD part lacks hyper-threading, so its thread count doubles the core count, meaning every core supports two threads. The Intel part has a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio, indicating no simultaneous multithreading. This gives the AMD chip a 14-thread advantage in total thread capacity.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The base clock is 4.40 GHz for the AMD chip versus 3.30 GHz for Intel, a gap of 1.10 GHz. The boost clock is 5.60 GHz for AMD versus 4.90 GHz for Intel, a gap of 0.70 GHz. The AMD chip also has a higher TDP at 120 watts versus 65 watts for Intel, reflecting the higher power envelope needed to feed those clocks and threads.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, a 12.8 GB/s difference despite both using dual-channel DDR5. ECC memory support is present on AMD, absent on Intel. PCIe lane counts differ by four lanes, with AMD offering 24 Gen 5 lanes and Intel offering 20 Gen 5 lanes.

Process node, transistor count, die size, and cache layouts all differ as noted in the architecture section. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $231, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part carries part number SRQD2SRVF9, the AMD part carries 100-000000662E. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 37,313 with an 85th percentile ranking; the AMD part has a 50th percentile ranking with an average score of zero due to missing data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has 10 cores and 10 threads. The AMD part offers 14 additional threads.

Q: What is the single-core performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F?

A: It scores 1,893 in Cinebench R23 single-core, 1,561 in Cinebench R20 single-core, and 287 in Cinebench R15 single-core. PassMark single-thread score is 4,397.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists an empty benchmark array for the AMD processor, with an average benchmark score of 0 and a 50th percentile ranking across all CPUs.

Q: What is the multi-core performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F?

A: It scores 16,467 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 11,059 in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 2,660 in Cinebench R15 multi-core. PassMark multi-thread score is 31,004.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F does not.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 37,313 is 0.3% below the Intel Core i9-13900HK, 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, 0.5% above the Intel Core i7-13700, and 0.5% above the AMD Ryzen 7 160.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F boosts to 4.90 GHz. AMD's base clock of 4.40 GHz also exceeds Intel's 3.30 GHz.

The Verdict

The data presents an asymmetric picture. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225F has comprehensive benchmark coverage and a clear performance profile: 85th percentile ranking, an average score of 37,313, and strong Cinebench and PassMark results across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Its nearest rivals all sit within 0.5% of its average score, indicating that it performs in line with established mid-high range desktop processors.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no benchmark data whatsoever. Its specifications suggest a processor aimed at a different use case: 24 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, ECC memory support, and Radeon integrated graphics point toward embedded or workstation scenarios where reliability and memory integrity matter more than raw benchmark dominance. The unlocked multiplier and 5.60 GHz boost clock hint at overclocking headroom, but the database contains no measurements to confirm actual performance.

For users who rely on benchmark-verified performance, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225F is the only option with recorded evidence. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 16,467 and single-core score of 1,893 provide concrete reference points. The AMD processor, lacking any scores, cannot be evaluated on measured performance, only on its specification sheet.

The choice depends on whether the workload requires the AMD part's specific features: ECC memory, integrated graphics, 24 threads, or the larger 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel part offers verified performance, a lower 65 watt TDP, higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, and a launch MSRP of $231. The AMD part counters with more threads, higher clocks, ECC support, and an unlocked multiplier, but none of those advantages are quantified in the database.