AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts differ between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Intel has more physical cores, but AMD offers simultaneous multithreading, resulting in 14 more threads for the AMD processor.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus boosts to 5.30 GHz. The AMD part holds a 0.40 GHz advantage in maximum frequency.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD processor offers 98 MB more L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP rating for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has a TDP of 170 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125 watts, which is 45 watts lower.

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D also supports ECC memory, so both processors include this feature.

Q: What is the average benchmark score and percentile ranking for the Intel processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an average benchmark score of 66855 and sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits in the 50th percentile, though that AMD score reflects missing benchmark data rather than actual performance.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename. Its generation is listed as Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5, Granite Ridge). The processor is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, and its generation is Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake). Intel's chip is fabricated on a 3 nm process node, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts differ. AMD's chip contains 16,630 million transistors spread across two chiplets, each with a die size of 70.6 mm². Intel's chip contains 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. The physical packaging approach is distinct: AMD uses a multi-die design, while Intel uses a monolithic die.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 128 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. AMD's total L3 capacity is more than four times larger than Intel's, a key factor for workloads with large working sets.

Both processors support DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses. Memory bandwidth differs: AMD reaches 89.6 GB/s, while Intel reaches 115.2 GB/s, giving Intel a 25.6 GB/s advantage. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also varies: AMD provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). AMD offers four additional PCIe lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D uses Radeon Graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. Both processors have unlocked multipliers. The AMD part was released on 2025-10-06, while the Intel part was released on 2026-03-10.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors with divergent design goals. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D targets workloads that benefit from simultaneous multithreading and a very large L3 cache. Its 32 threads and 128 MB of L3 cache point toward heavy multi-threaded compute tasks where thread count and cache capacity dominate.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus targets a broader desktop segment. Its 18 physical cores without hyperthreading still provide strong multi-core capability, but its 30 MB of shared L3 cache is significantly smaller. Intel compensates with higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s and a smaller process node at 3 nm.

For users who rely on threaded rendering, compilation, or scientific workloads that scale with thread count and cache, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D is the logical choice based on its 32 threads and 128 MB of L3 cache. For users who prioritize memory bandwidth and a lower TDP, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus presents a compelling alternative with its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and 125-watt TDP.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also carries a launch MSRP of $199, which is a factual data point from the database. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 18 |

| Threads | 32 | 18 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Granite Ridge | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache (per core) | 80 KB | 192 KB |

| L2 cache (per core) | 1 MB | 3 MB |

| L3 cache | 128 MB | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 24 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Release date | 2025-10-06 | 2026-03-10 |

| Launch MSRP | None recorded | $199 |

| Part number | 100-000000719E | SA4UZ |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus but no benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D in this comparison set. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and the wins counters show zero wins for each side. Therefore, direct numerical comparisons between the two processors from recorded tests are not available.

What the data does provide is a full benchmark profile for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 4640 points, with a single-core score of 328. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score reaches 18442 points, and single-core reaches 2603. In Cinebench R23, multi-core scores 30867, and single-core scores 2261.

The Passmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus show strong multi-threaded performance. The multithread score is 51596, and the single-thread score is 4757. Integer math scores 125091, while floating-point math scores 162692. Data compression scores 568721, and data encryption scores 42144. Extended instructions score 44565, and random string sorting scores 69090. Physics tests yield a score of 3494, and prime number finding yields 486.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus holds an average benchmark score of 66855 and ranks in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 4465P with an average score of 66925, which is 0.1% higher, and the Intel Xeon 6515P with an average score of 67006, which is 0.2% higher. The Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX scores 67469, which is 0.9% higher. The closest competitor below it is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus with an average score of 66159, which is 1.1% lower.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has an average benchmark score of 0 and a percentile rank of 50, but this reflects the absence of recorded benchmark entries in the database rather than actual performance. Without recorded test scores, the database cannot establish a measured performance relationship between the two processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins on memory bandwidth. Its 115.2 GB/s exceeds the AMD part's 89.6 GB/s by 25.6 GB/s, which benefits workloads that stream large datasets through memory rather than fitting them in cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus also wins on physical core count with 18 cores versus 16, and it offers a larger per-core L2 cache at 3 MB per core versus 1 MB per core. Its L1 cache per core is also larger at 192 KB versus 80 KB.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins on power efficiency based on TDP: 125 watts versus 170 watts, a 45-watt difference. It also uses a more advanced 3 nm node compared to AMD's 4 nm node.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D wins on thread count with 32 threads versus 18, which matters for workloads that can utilize simultaneous multithreading effectively. It wins on L3 cache capacity with 128 MB versus 30 MB, a decisive advantage for applications with large, frequently accessed working sets.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D wins on boost clock speed at 5.70 GHz versus 5.30 GHz, providing a 0.40 GHz advantage for lightly threaded tasks that scale with frequency.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D also wins on PCIe lane count with 24 Gen 5 lanes versus 20 Gen 5 lanes.

In terms of recorded benchmark data, only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has scores, and those scores place it in the 93rd percentile. Its nearest rival comparisons show a tight cluster around its average score, with the AMD EPYC 4465P and Intel Xeon 6515P essentially tied at the same performance level. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus trails by 1.1%, indicating that the 250K Plus performs slightly better than its direct sibling without the Plus designation.

The absence of benchmark scores for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D means the database cannot assign measured wins to either processor in head-to-head tests. The architectural specifications provide the only basis for differentiation, and those specifications favor AMD for thread-heavy, cache-heavy workloads and Intel for bandwidth-heavy, power-conscious workloads.