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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel chip has two more physical cores, but the AMD chip has 14 more threads thanks to simultaneous multithreading.

Q: How do these two compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has an average benchmark score of 67,868, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 66,159 on average, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The AMD chip is roughly 2.6% higher in average score.

Q: Which chip is faster in single-threaded PassMark performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is significantly faster in PassMark single-thread tests, scoring 4,698 compared to the AMD's 3,324. That is a 29.2% advantage for Intel in this specific workload.

Q: Is there a big difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. The AMD platform has substantially higher memory bandwidth capacity.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX boosts to 4.50 GHz. Intel holds a 0.80 GHz advantage in maximum clock speed.

The Verdict

The data splits these two processors into clear roles. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is a workstation and server part, built for throughput in specialized workloads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with a lower TDP, higher clocks, and a focus on general compute tasks.

For users running heavily threaded, memory-hungry, or integer-heavy workloads, the AMD chip is the better pick. It wins data compression by 24.9%, integer math by 50.5%, and data encryption by 3%. Its eight-channel memory bus and 64 MB of L3 cache support these wins.

For users who prioritize single-core responsiveness, floating-point math, or prime-number finding, the Intel chip is the clear choice. It wins all six Cinebench tests by roughly 2% each, and it dominates in PassMark single-thread by 29.2%, floating-point math by 34.7%, and prime numbers by 45.1%. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 3 nm process node deliver those results.

The Intel chip also has a lower TDP at 125 watts versus 280 watts for AMD. That makes it easier to cool in a standard desktop build. However, the AMD chip offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 20 Gen 5 lanes, so expansion capability is massively different. The AMD part is for a system that needs to attach many devices; the Intel part is for a focused, high-clock desktop.

The overall benchmark scores are close. AMD edges ahead by about 2.6% in average score, but Intel wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. That suggests Intel has broader general-purpose strength, while AMD wins the specific heavy-lifting tasks by larger margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus come in PassMark workloads. In floating-point math, Intel scores 159,824 against AMD's 104,377, a 34.7% advantage. In prime number finding, Intel scores 452 versus 248, a 45.1% lead. In single-thread PassMark, Intel scores 4,698 versus 3,324, a 29.2% lead. These are not small edges; they are category-changing differences for workloads that depend on clock speed and per-core efficiency.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX returns the favor in integer-heavy and memory-latency-sensitive tasks. Its integer math score of 185,168 beats Intel's 123,030 by 50.5%. In data compression, AMD scores 690,994 versus Intel's 553,155, a 24.9% win. AMD also wins extended instructions by 9.5%, random string sorting by 4%, and data encryption by 3%.

The Cinebench results are close but consistently favor Intel. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 42,718 versus AMD's 41,837, a 2.1% lead. In R23 single-core, Intel scores 6,030 versus 5,906, also a 2.1% lead. The same pattern repeats in R20 and R15: Intel wins each by 2% to 2.1%. These margins are small, but they are uniform across all six Cinebench tests, indicating a consistent per-core advantage for Intel.

The PassMark multithread test is nearly a tie. Intel scores 50,146 against AMD's 49,220, a 1.8% lead. PassMark physics also goes to Intel, 3,183 versus 2,913, an 8.5% lead. So even in multi-threaded synthetic workloads, Intel is competitive despite having fewer threads.

The head-to-head record is 12 wins for Intel and 5 wins for AMD. AMD's wins are concentrated in data processing and integer tasks, while Intel's wins span Cinebench, floating-point, prime numbers, physics, and single-thread tests.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. AMD offers 16 cores and 32 threads; Intel offers 18 cores and 18 threads. That means Intel has more physical cores, but AMD has 14 more threads available for parallel work.

Clock speeds favor Intel. AMD has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Intel has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. Intel leads by 0.20 GHz at base and 0.80 GHz at boost.

Power draw is very different. AMD has a TDP of 280 watts, while Intel has a TDP of 125 watts. That is a 155-watt difference, making Intel much easier to cool in a standard desktop chassis.

Memory support is a major divider. AMD uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses dual-channel DDR5 with 115.2 GB/s. The AMD platform has nearly double the theoretical memory bandwidth, though Intel's DDR5 memory operates at higher clock speeds per module.

PCIe lanes are another major difference. AMD provides 128 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides 20 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). AMD offers far more total lanes, while Intel offers a newer generation with higher per-lane bandwidth.

The socket and platform differ completely. AMD uses Socket WRX8, while Intel uses Socket 1851. The AMD chip is a server/workstation part, while Intel is a desktop part. AMD's multiplier is locked; Intel's multiplier is unlocked.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses the Zen 3 architecture, code-named Chagall PRO, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has 16,600 million transistors spread across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration. The cache layout is 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh architecture, code-named Arrow Lake, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 17,800 million transistors on a single 243 mm² die. The cache layout is 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache.

The manufacturing process difference is significant. Intel's 3 nm node is a newer generation than AMD's 7 nm node, which helps explain Intel's higher clock speeds and better single-thread performance per watt. However, AMD's larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 30 MB) supports its wins in data compression and integer math.

Intel's L2 cache is much larger per core at 3 MB versus 512 KB. That gives Intel a per-core advantage for workloads that fit in L2. AMD's L3 cache is more than double Intel's, which helps with larger working sets.

The AMD chip does not have integrated graphics, and neither does the Intel chip (marked as N/A). Both require a discrete GPU.

The release dates differ by years. AMD launched on 2022-03-07, while Intel launched on 2026-03-10. The Intel chip is a much newer design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins in data compression, integer math, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting. It also holds a small edge in average benchmark score and sits in a higher percentile. This makes it the right choice for database-style workloads, compression pipelines, cryptographic tasks, and any application that processes large integer datasets or relies on high memory bandwidth.

Its eight-channel memory bus and 64 MB L3 cache are the architectural reasons for these wins. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also make it suitable for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network cards. The 280-watt TDP and server/workstation market segment confirm its intended role.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins in all Cinebench tests, floating-point math, prime number finding, physics, multithread, and single-thread tests. It leads by large margins in floating-point (34.7%) and single-thread (29.2%). This makes it the better choice for general desktop use, gaming, scientific computing with heavy floating-point math, and any workload that responds to high clock speeds.

Its 3 nm process, 5.30 GHz boost clock, and unlocked multiplier make it a strong candidate for overclocking and performance tuning. The 125-watt TDP means it fits into standard desktop builds without exotic cooling. The dual-channel DDR5 memory is sufficient for most desktop tasks, even though it lacks the bandwidth of AMD's eight-channel setup.

In summary, pick the AMD for server-class throughput and memory bandwidth. Pick the Intel for clock speed, floating-point performance, and desktop efficiency. The benchmark data supports both choices depending on the workload.