AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235A Comparison

AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D and Intel Core Ultra 5 235A are two desktop processors with very different design goals. The AMD part is a 12-core/24-thread chip with a large 128 MB L3 cache, while the Intel part is a 14-core/14-thread chip with a higher memory bandwidth and a smaller 24 MB shared L3 cache. The recorded benchmark data shows Intel’s Core Ultra 5 235A delivering a full suite of test scores, whereas the database lists no benchmark results for the Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D. This places the Intel chip at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 48201, while the AMD chip sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero due to the absence of recorded measurements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has a complete set of benchmark results in the database, making it possible to assess its performance in detail. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 32633 points, while in Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 4607 points. These results indicate strong sustained multi-threaded throughput and competitive single-thread performance for a desktop processor in its segment. The Cinebench R20 results show 13705 points in multi-core and 1934 points in single-core, and Cinebench R15 shows 3289 points in multi-core and 464 points in single-core. The progression across these Cinebench versions is consistent, with the Intel chip scaling well from older to newer rendering workloads.

PassMark tests provide additional insight into specific workload types. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 393800 in data compression, 30136 in data encryption, and 31625 in extended instructions. In integer math, it scores 88626, while floating point math reaches 118778. The multithread score is 38392, and the single-thread score is 4557. Physics tests show 2437 points, and random string sorting shows 49489 points. Prime number finding scores 392. These numbers indicate a processor that handles compression, encryption, and floating-point operations with balanced efficiency, while integer math and prime-finding tasks are comparatively more modest.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence means that no direct head-to-head comparison of measured performance can be made between the two chips. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is compared in the database to several rivals: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380, which has an average score of 48171 and a delta percentage of 0.1; the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, with an average score of 48287 and a delta percentage of -0.2; the AMD EPYC 4345P, with an average score of 48470 and a delta percentage of -0.6; and the AMD Ryzen 9 3900, with an average score of 47918 and a delta percentage of 0.6. These deltas show the Core Ultra 5 235A sitting within a narrow band of less than one percent of its closest competitors, indicating that its measured performance is tightly grouped with those processors.

Because the Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D lacks benchmark entries, the largest wins in this comparison belong entirely to the Intel chip by default. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A delivers quantifiable results across rendering, compression, encryption, and math workloads, while the AMD chip offers no measurable data points. The database’s percentile ranking reinforces this gap: the Intel part ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part ranks in the 50th percentile, a position that reflects the lack of recorded scores rather than any implied deficiency. The Intel chip also has a higher average benchmark score of 48201 compared to the AMD chip’s score of zero, which is a direct consequence of the missing data.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D, resulting in an average benchmark score of zero and a 50th percentile ranking.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A’s best multi-core benchmark result?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A scores 32633 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, its highest recorded multi-core score across the Cinebench suite.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel chip’s average benchmark score of 48201 is within 0.6 percent of its closest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 (48171, delta 0.1) and the AMD EPYC 4345P (48470, delta -0.6).

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A?

A: The Intel chip scores 4557 in PassMark single-thread tests and 4607 in Cinebench R23 single-core, indicating strong per-core performance.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A does not.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the only processor in this comparison with measurable performance. Its recorded scores span rendering, compression, encryption, and math workloads, and its 90th percentile ranking places it among the higher-performing CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no benchmark results, so no performance-based argument can be made for it. Users requiring documented performance data should consider the Intel chip, as its scores provide a clear reference point. The AMD chip’s specifications, such as its 12 cores, 24 threads, and 128 MB L3 cache, suggest a different feature set, but the absence of measurements means that any performance assessment is impossible from the database alone. For workloads that depend on benchmark-verified throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is the only choice supported by evidence.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has 14 cores and 14 threads. The AMD chip has a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz, whereas the Intel chip has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs substantially, with the AMD part rated at 120 watts and the Intel part at 65 watts. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel chip does not. The AMD part has a part number of 100-000001368E, and the Intel part has a part number of SRWPN. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A has a launch MSRP of $269, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no launch MSRP listed in the database.

Memory support is similar in that both processors use DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus. However, memory bandwidth differs: the AMD chip offers 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel chip offers 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the AMD chip providing Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only) and the Intel chip providing Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are listed for both, with the AMD chip featuring Radeon Graphics and the Intel chip featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Release dates differ as well, with the AMD chip released on 2025-10-06 and the Intel chip released on 2025-07-28.

Architecture Differences

The architectural profiles of the two processors are distinct. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D is built on the Granite Ridge codename and belongs to the Ryzen Embedded generation based on Zen 5 architecture. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC and has 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of L3 cache. This large L3 cache is a defining feature of the AMD part, providing substantial on-chip storage for repeated data access.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235A is built on the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-S, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. It uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC and has 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm². Its cache hierarchy includes 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 cache per core is notably larger on the Intel chip, while the AMD chip’s L3 cache is more than five times larger in total capacity. The Intel chip’s architecture supports DDR5 memory with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and it lacks ECC memory support, which the AMD chip provides. These architectural differences reflect divergent priorities: the AMD chip emphasizes large cache capacity and ECC capability, while the Intel chip focuses on a newer process node, higher memory bandwidth, and a higher transistor count.