AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus represent two fundamentally different approaches to processing power, with the former being a workstation-class part and the latter a desktop enthusiast chip. The head-to-head benchmark data shows a near-even split, with Intel winning 9 tests and AMD winning 8. However, the magnitude of those wins tells a clear story: the Threadripper dominates in single-threaded and integer-heavy workloads, while the Core Ultra 5 counters with strong showings in floating-point math and prime number calculations. This comparison hinges on workload type more than raw average scores, with the AMD part scoring 67,868 and the Intel part scoring 66,855 on average, putting them at the 94th and 93rd percentiles of all CPUs, respectively.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic result in the entire dataset is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. Here, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX scores 5,906 against the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s 2,261, a staggering 161.2% advantage. This is not a marginal difference; it is a generational gap in per-thread performance. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD leads 595 to 328, a 81.4% delta. These results indicate that despite the Intel chip’s higher boost clock, the Zen 3 architecture delivers far superior single-threaded execution in these specific legacy benchmarks. This is a critical metric for older software that relies on one or two heavily optimized threads.

In multi-core workloads, the results are mixed. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus takes Cinebench R15 multi-core with 4,640 versus 4,217 (a -9.1% delta for AMD) and Cinebench R20 multi-core with 18,442 versus 17,571 (-4.7%). However, the AMD Threadripper PRO 5955WX flips the script in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 41,837 against Intel’s 30,867, a 35.5% lead. This suggests that the AMD chip’s 16 cores and 32 threads scale better in longer-duration renders, while the Intel part’s 18 cores and 18 threads (without hyperthreading) hit a scaling wall. The PassMark multi-thread test shows Intel winning narrowly, 51,596 to 49,220 (-4.6%), which aligns with the R15 and R20 results.

Integer math is a definitive win for AMD. The PassMark integer math score for the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is 185,168, versus 125,091 for the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, a 48% advantage. This is a massive gap that reflects the AMD chip’s ability to handle complex integer calculations, likely due to its 32 threads. Conversely, the Intel part dominates floating-point math, scoring 162,692 to AMD’s 104,377, a -35.8% delta for AMD. Intel also wins PassMark find prime numbers, 486 to 248 (-49%), and PassMark physics, 3,494 to 2,913 (-16.6%). Single-threaded PassMark tests favor Intel, 4,757 to 3,324 (-30.1%), which contrasts sharply with the Cinebench R23 single-core result, highlighting how benchmark-specific these outcomes are.

In data-centric tasks, AMD shows strength. PassMark data compression favors the Threadripper, 690,994 to 568,721 (21.5% lead). Data encryption is nearly tied, with AMD at 42,524 and Intel at 42,144 (0.9% lead). Extended instructions also go to AMD, 46,952 to 44,565 (5.4%). Random string sorting is effectively a tie, with AMD at 69,879 and Intel at 69,090 (1.1% lead). These results suggest the AMD chip’s larger cache and thread count benefit memory-intensive operations, even when the Intel chip has a higher memory bandwidth per channel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is vast. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is built on TSMC’s 7 nm process node, featuring 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration. It uses the Zen 3 architecture (codename Chagall PRO) and is part of the 5000 series. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is fabricated on TSMC’s 3 nm node (codename Arrow Lake Refresh), packing 17,800 million transistors into a single 243 mm² die. This means Intel has a more modern process, but AMD’s chiplet design allows for a larger aggregate cache footprint.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The AMD part offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 30 MB of shared L3. While Intel’s per-core L1 and L2 are larger, the AMD chip’s total L3 capacity is over double, which is crucial for server and workstation datasets that exceed the L3 on the Intel part. Memory support also diverges: AMD uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s. The AMD platform’s eight-channel design provides significantly higher aggregate bandwidth, despite using older memory technology.

PCIe lanes are another major divide. The Threadripper PRO 5955WX supports Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports Gen 5 with only 20 lanes. This makes the AMD part far more suitable for multi-GPU or high-density storage arrays. The Intel chip includes integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, while the AMD part has no integrated graphics. Finally, the Intel part has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the AMD part is locked. The Threadripper’s TDP is 280W, while the Core Ultra 5’s is 125W, reflecting their different market segments: Server/Workstation versus Desktop.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins decisively, scoring 5,906 versus 2,261 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, a 161.2% advantage.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus faster in multi-core workloads?

A: It depends on the test. Intel wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,640 vs 4,217) and R20 multi-core (18,442 vs 17,571), but AMD wins Cinebench R23 multi-core (41,837 vs 30,867) and PassMark integer math (185,168 vs 125,091).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD chip supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s. The Intel chip supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, yielding 115.2 GB/s. The AMD part has nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes for expansion?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX provides 128 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part is far more expandable.

Q: Does either chip include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a higher boost clock at 5.30 GHz, compared to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX’s 4.50 GHz. However, this does not translate to single-core wins in Cinebench R23.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus:

• Cores: 16 (AMD) vs 18 (Intel)
• Threads: 32 (AMD) vs 18 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz (AMD) vs 4.20 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 4.50 GHz (AMD) vs 5.30 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 280W (AMD) vs 125W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket WRX8 vs Intel Socket 1851
• Codename: Chagall PRO vs Arrow Lake Refresh
• Process Node: 7 nm (AMD) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 16,600 million (AMD) vs 17,800 million (Intel)
• Die Size: 4x 81 mm² (AMD) vs 243 mm² (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) vs 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (AMD) vs 3 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 64 MB (AMD) vs 30 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (AMD) vs DDR5 (Intel)
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel (AMD) vs Dual-channel (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s (AMD) vs 115.2 GB/s (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 128 Lanes (AMD) vs Gen 5, 20 Lanes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: None (AMD) vs Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Intel)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (AMD) vs Desktop (Intel)
• Release Date: 2022-03-07 (AMD) vs 2026-03-10 (Intel)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (AMD) vs Yes (Intel)
• Part Number: 100-000000447 (AMD) vs SA4UZ (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: None listed (AMD) vs $199 (Intel)

The Verdict

The data points to a clear division of labor. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the pick for workloads that demand massive thread counts and cache capacity, such as Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering (41,837 vs 30,867) and integer math (185,168 vs 125,091). Its 64 MB of L3 and eight-channel memory bandwidth make it suitable for server and workstation tasks that process large datasets, and its 128 PCIe lanes offer unmatched expansion. The 94th percentile standing and close rivalry with the AMD EPYC 4484PX (delta 0.1%) reinforce its server-grade positioning.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process, is the better choice for latency-sensitive and floating-point-heavy desktop applications. It wins PassMark floating-point math (162,692 vs 104,377) and PassMark single-thread (4,757 vs 3,324). Its lower 125W TDP and unlocked multiplier make it more flexible for desktop overclocking, and the integrated graphics provide a fallback for systems without a discrete GPU. Its 93rd percentile and proximity to the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (delta -0.9%) show it holds its own in the desktop arena.

There is no universal winner. The AMD part wins in raw throughput for extended renders and integer workloads, while the Intel part wins in physics simulations and floating-point calculations. The choice should be dictated by the specific software stack. If the workload scales with threads and cache, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the data-driven choice. If the workload favors high-frequency single-thread execution and floating-point math, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is superior. Benchmark results indicate that the Intel chip’s 9 wins versus AMD’s 8 wins are superficial; the delta magnitudes reveal that AMD’s victories are often more decisive in core workstation tasks.