AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database provides no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the AMD processor has no recorded benchmark entries at all. The Intel part, by contrast, carries a full suite of Cinebench, Geekbench, and Passmark scores. This asymmetry in available data means the comparison must rely on the Intel processor's measured results and the architectural specifications of both parts, rather than direct side-by-side testing.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9240 and a single-core score of 1843. In Geekbench, it records 14024 multicore and 2335 single-core. Passmark results show a multithread score of 30703, single-thread of 4317, integer math at 77975, floating point math at 98796, and extended instructions at 23755. Data encryption scores 23395, data compression 298850, random string sorting 36058, physics 2254, and find prime numbers 303. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 33537, placing it at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no benchmark scores recorded, no average score, and sits at the 50th percentile with a zero score placeholder. Because the AMD chip lacks any measured results, the database cannot confirm its performance level relative to the Intel chip. The Intel processor's percentile rank of 83 versus the AMD processor's percentile of 50 reflects the presence of data for one and the absence for the other, not a direct performance comparison.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's nearest rivals in the database are all AMD or older Intel mobile processors. It scores 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i5-12600HX, which averages 33375. Against the AMD Ryzen 5 240, which averages 33542, the Core Ultra 7 255H is effectively tied at a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS averages 33667, placing the Core Ultra 7 255H 0.4% behind it, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX also averages 33668, a 0.4% deficit. These deltas are all within one percent, indicating that the Core Ultra 7 255H sits in a tightly clustered performance band among these mobile processors.

The lack of AMD benchmark data prevents any statement about which processor wins specific workloads in head-to-head tests. The recorded data only permits a characterization of the Intel part's absolute scores and its standing among its nearest rivals. The AMD processor's 12 cores and 24 threads, along with its 128 MB L3 cache, suggest substantial multi-threaded capability, but no measured score exists to substantiate that in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the only one of these two processors with a verified benchmark profile. Its average score of 33537, its 83rd percentile ranking, and its placement within one percent of four established mobile processors give it a concrete performance identity. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no scores in the database, which means any performance verdict for that part would be unsupported by measurements.

From the data alone, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the processor that can be positioned with confidence. It delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 9240 and a single-core score of 1843, and its Passmark multithread result of 30703 places it in the same class as the AMD Ryzen 5 240, AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS, AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, and Intel Core i5-12600HX, all within 0.5% of its average score. The AMD part's absence from the benchmark suite means the database cannot confirm whether it would outperform, match, or trail the Intel chip in any workload.

Who should pick which, strictly from the data, is a question of data availability. A user seeking a processor with documented multicore and single-core scores would select the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H. A user considering the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D would be relying on its specifications alone, since no benchmark results are recorded. The Intel part's 83rd percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 50th percentile is a data artifact, not a performance conclusion.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has an average benchmark score of 33537 and sits at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

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

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i5-12600HX (33375), tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 240 (33542), and 0.4% behind both the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS (33667) and the AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX (33668).

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H scores 9240 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 1843 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Which processor has more cores in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D and Intel Core Ultra 7 255H differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The AMD part uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel part uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks diverge sharply: the AMD processor runs at 4.40 GHz, the Intel at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the AMD at 5.50 GHz and the Intel at 5.10 GHz. Thermal design power is a major distinction: the AMD part is rated at 120 watts, the Intel at 28 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses Intel BGA 2049. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Intel processor does not. Market segment differs as well: the AMD part is classified as Desktop, the Intel as Mobile. Release dates are recorded as 2025-10-06 for the AMD and 2025-01-12 for the Intel. Neither part has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Intel part achieves 102.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 89.6 GB/s for the AMD. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes differ: the AMD provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes, the Intel Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the AMD featuring Radeon Graphics and the Intel featuring Arc Graphics 140T. Part numbers are recorded as 100-000001368E for the AMD and SRQAN for the Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename, with a generation listed as Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5, Granite Ridge). The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H belongs to Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-H codename, and its generation is listed as Ultra 7 (Arrow Lake-H). The AMD part's architecture field is null in the database, but its codename and generation identify it as a Zen 5 product.

Process nodes differ by one nanometer step. The AMD processor is built on a 4 nm process, the Intel on a 3 nm process, both by TSMC. The AMD part has a recorded transistor count of 16,630 million and a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel part has no transistor count or die size recorded. Cache hierarchies are substantially different. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor's L3 cache is over five times larger than the Intel's.

The AMD part's 128 MB L3 cache, combined with its Zen 5 architecture, points toward a design optimized for cache-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this. The Intel part's smaller 24 MB L3 and higher per-core L1 and L2 allocations suggest a different cache philosophy. Both processors use TSMC as the foundry, but the Intel part's 3 nm node is one step smaller. The Intel processor also has a much lower TDP at 28 watts versus 120 watts, reflecting its mobile classification.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is the only processor with documented wins. It has measured scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, Geekbench, and nine Passmark subtests. Its average score of 33537 and 83rd percentile placement are the only performance data points available for either processor. The Intel part also leads in memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, which suits mobile and compact systems.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D cannot be assigned any benchmark wins because the database contains no scores for it. Its specifications do indicate areas where it would likely compete: 24 threads versus 16, a 5.50 GHz boost clock versus 5.10 GHz, a 128 MB L3 cache versus 24 MB, and a 120 watt TDP that suggests a higher power envelope. The unlocked multiplier and AM5 socket position it as a desktop-oriented part. But without recorded results, any claim of a win for the AMD processor would go beyond the data.

The use-case split follows the available evidence. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins in every measured category by default, because it is the only part with measurements. Its 28 watt TDP and mobile segment classification indicate a fit for power-constrained environments. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D, with its desktop classification, 120 watt TDP, and larger cache, appears aimed at embedded desktop workloads, but the database does not quantify its performance. For a user choosing between the two on the basis of recorded data, the Intel processor is the only one with a verified performance profile. The AMD processor remains an unmeasured specification sheet.