AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X vs Intel Core Ultra 9 288V Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V carries all recorded benchmark scores in the database, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no benchmark entries at all. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible, but the available data still offers meaningful analysis through the Intel part’s rival set and the architectural facts recorded for both processors.

The Core Ultra 9 288V posts an average benchmark score of 23,219, placing it at the 76th percentile of all CPUs tracked by the database. Its nearest recorded rival, the Intel Core i9-11900F, scores 23,254, which is 0.2% higher. The AMD EPYC 4124P trails by a similarly narrow margin, scoring 23,167, a 0.2% deficit. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800H sits 0.2% ahead at 23,277, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V, a lower-tier member of the same Lunar Lake family, scores 23,297, or 0.3% higher. These four rivals are clustered within a 0.5% band, indicating that the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers performance right at the center of a tightly packed group of desktop and mobile processors from both Intel and AMD.

Looking at the individual Cinebench results, the Core Ultra 9 288V achieves 1,583 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 301.5 points in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it records 7,069 multi-core and 997 single-core. The newer Cinebench R23 workload shows 10,178 multi-core and 1,950 single-core. The multi-core to single-core ratio remains consistent across all three Cinebench versions, suggesting balanced scaling across the processor’s eight cores and eight threads.

PassMark results add further texture. The Core Ultra 9 288V reaches 19,810 in multithread and 4,274 in single-thread tests. Its floating point math score is 59,536, while integer math lands at 44,019. Data compression scores 186,521, data encryption 14,141, and extended instructions 15,613. The processor finds 195 prime numbers in the PassMark prime number test, completes 16,637 in physics, and sorts 22,622 random strings. These figures indicate a processor that excels at compression and floating-point workloads, while the physics score of 1,637 and prime number count of 195 are more modest relative to its other results.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no benchmark scores in the database, the head-to-head narrative must rely on the architectural and specification data recorded for both processors. The Ryzen part offers 12 cores and 24 threads, whereas the Intel part offers 8 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen chip’s thread count is triple its core count, reflecting simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel chip treats each core as a single thread. The Core Ultra 9 288V’s clock speeds peak at 5.10 GHz boost and 3.30 GHz base, against the Ryzen Embedded 9900X’s 5.60 GHz boost and 4.40 GHz base. The AMD part holds the frequency advantage in both metrics, and its additional four cores and sixteen threads should theoretically provide a substantial multi-threaded edge, though no recorded benchmark confirms this.

The database shows zero head-to-head benchmark entries for this pairing, and the win counter lists zero wins for either processor. The Intel part’s percentile ranking of 76 versus the AMD part’s ranking of 50 does not reflect a direct comparison, since the AMD entry carries no average score. The percentile field for the Ryzen Embedded 9900X appears to be a placeholder rather than a measured result.

FAQ

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

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X, and its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V carries all available benchmark data.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Core Ultra 9 288V scores 23,219 on average. The Intel Core i9-11900F is 0.2% higher at 23,254, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H is 0.2% higher at 23,277, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 266V is 0.3% higher at 23,297. The AMD EPYC 4124P is 0.2% lower at 23,167.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V has 8 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V boosts to 5.10 GHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 4.40 GHz versus 3.30 GHz.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X supports DDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V supports LPDDR5X. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the Intel part records a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s against the AMD part’s 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V does not.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two processors include?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V includes Arc 140V.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to different use cases for each processor. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the only one of the two with verified performance measurements, and those measurements place it at the 76th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its average score of 23,219 sits within 0.3% of four closely matched rivals, including desktop parts like the Intel Core i9-11900F and mobile parts like the AMD Ryzen 7 5800H. This suggests the Core Ultra 9 288V delivers consistent, mid-to-upper-tier performance across a variety of workloads, with particularly strong results in data compression and floating-point math.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X, by contrast, has no measured performance data in the database. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration and 5.60 GHz boost clock indicate a processor designed for heavy parallel workloads, but the absence of benchmark scores means the database cannot confirm how that theoretical capability translates into real-world results. Its 50th percentile ranking, with an average score of zero, reflects missing data rather than measured mediocrity.

For users who require verified performance numbers, the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V is the only option with recorded evidence. Its 8 threads and 30 W TDP point to an efficient, compact design suited to mobile systems, while its 76th percentile standing confirms it outperforms the majority of tracked processors. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X, with its 120 W TDP, AM5 socket, and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, targets embedded and desktop applications where core count and connectivity matter more than measured single-thread speed. The data does not support a direct winner, because one competitor has no scores. The choice rests on whether the user prioritizes verified performance and efficiency, which favors the Intel part, or core count, ECC support, and expandability, which the specification sheet favors for the AMD part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 288V uses 8 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks stand at 4.40 GHz for AMD and 3.30 GHz for Intel, with boost clocks at 5.60 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. Thermal design power differs sharply: the AMD part draws 120 W, the Intel part 30 W. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket AM5, the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 2833. Memory support splits between DDR5 for AMD and LPDDR5X for Intel, with memory bandwidth recorded at 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 136.5 GB/s for Intel. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD side. PCIe lane counts also differ: the AMD part provides Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The AMD multiplier is unlocked, the Intel multiplier is locked. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics on the AMD part and Arc 140V on the Intel part. The AMD processor targets the desktop market segment, while the Intel processor targets mobile. Release dates place the Intel part at 2024-09-23 and the AMD part at 2025-10-06.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X belongs to the 9000 series and the Ryzen Embedded generation, built on the Zen 5 microarchitecture with the codename Granite Ridge. The Intel Core Ultra 9 288V belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 and the Ultra 9 generation, built on the Lunar Lake architecture with the codename Lunar Lake. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different process nodes: the AMD part uses a 4 nm process, the Intel part uses a 3 nm process.

Cache structures differ considerably. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel part allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 12 MB L3 cache. The AMD part’s total L3 cache of 64 MB is more than five times the Intel part’s 12 MB, while the Intel part’s per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger. The AMD processor records 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel processor has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

The production status for both parts is listed as Active. The AMD part’s part number is 100-000000662E, while the Intel part’s part number is SRPMSSRPMWQ5JTQ5JUQ5KW. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. The AMD part’s 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and ECC support reflect its embedded and server-oriented positioning, while the Intel part’s 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and LPDDR5X memory support align with its mobile Ultra 9 placement. The Intel part’s higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s comes from the LPDDR5X standard, which trades the flexibility of socketed DDR5 for integrated, lower-power memory. The AMD part’s dual-chiplet design, implied by the 2x 70.6 mm² die size, separates compute onto two CCDs, whereas the Intel part uses a monolithic Lunar Lake design that integrates memory and I/O more tightly. The Zen 5 architecture in the AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading, which explains the 24 threads from 12 cores, while Lunar Lake in the Intel part does not, leaving 8 threads from 8 cores.