AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum, yet their aggregate benchmark scores are nearly inseparable. The data shows a 0.5% delta in average benchmark score favoring the AMD part, with both processors sitting in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. This makes for a fascinating comparison: a 350W workstation behemoth against a 55W mobile flagship, separated by a hair in overall performance but distinguished by radically different architectural priorities.

Architecture Differences

The foundational split between these two processors is evident in their core configurations. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX utilizes 12 cores and 24 threads built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, with a transistor count of 16,630 million spread across a dual-chiplet design totaling 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX, by contrast, employs 24 cores and 24 threads on the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-HX. It uses a newer 3 nm TSMC process, packing 17,800 million transistors into a single 243 mm² die. The core count disparity is stark: Intel offers double the physical cores, but AMD matches thread count via simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, culminating in a shared 64 MB L3 pool. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 36 MB of shared L3. This gives AMD a 28 MB advantage in last-level cache, which directly impacts workloads that thrash the memory hierarchy. Clock speeds tell another story: AMD starts at a 4.70 GHz base and boosts to 5.40 GHz, while Intel starts lower at 2.80 GHz but reaches a slightly higher 5.50 GHz boost. The base clock gap of 1.90 GHz reflects their different power envelopes.

Memory infrastructure is where the platforms truly separate. The Threadripper PRO supports DDR5 across an eight-channel memory bus, yielding 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core Ultra 9 285HX also supports DDR5 but on a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s — exactly one quarter of the AMD part’s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity follows the same pattern: AMD provides 128 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers 20 Gen 5 lanes. The Threadripper PRO has no integrated graphics, whereas the Core Ultra 9 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD part is unlocked for overclocking, as is the Intel part, but the former targets the Server/Workstation segment on Socket sTR5, while the latter is a Mobile part on BGA 2114.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a nuanced picture that defies simple categorization. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins 10 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX takes 7. However, the magnitude of those wins matters more than the count. AMD’s victories include massive margins in single-core Cinebench tests, with a 211.9% lead in R23 single-core and a 112.4% lead in R15 single-core. These are not incremental gains; they represent a generational gap in per-thread performance. The Threadripper PRO also dominates in integer math (19.6% ahead) and physics (76% ahead), suggesting workloads that rely on branch prediction and scalar execution will strongly favor the AMD platform.

The Intel part, conversely, wins decisively in floating-point math, posting a 42.8% advantage, and in data encryption, with a 24.8% lead. It also edges out AMD in prime number finding (27.2% ahead) and holds a marginal 0.1% lead in PassMark multithread score. For users selecting between these, the choice hinges on workload character. The Threadripper PRO is the clear pick for single-threaded responsiveness, integer-heavy compilation, and physics simulation. The Core Ultra 9 285HX is preferable for floating-point computation, cryptographic workloads, and any scenario where the 55W TDP allows deployment in a laptop chassis. The eight-channel memory bandwidth of the AMD part makes it the obvious choice for memory-bound server tasks, while the Intel part’s integrated graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has 24 cores, double the 12 cores of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX. Both parts present 24 threads, however, because AMD uses simultaneous multithreading on its 12 cores.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The AMD processor is dramatically ahead in single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 6822 versus 2187.5 for the Intel part, a 211.9% advantage. PassMark single-thread scores are much closer, with Intel leading 4618 to 4573, a 1% difference.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX provides 409.6 GB/s via an eight-channel DDR5 memory bus. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX provides 102.4 GB/s via a dual-channel bus, making the AMD platform four times faster in theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX includes integrated graphics, specifically Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD part is rated at 350W, while the Intel part is rated at 55W. This reflects their intended segments: the Threadripper PRO for server/workstation use and the Core Ultra 9 for mobile platforms.

Q: Which CPU wins in encryption performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX leads in PassMark data encryption, scoring 48567 compared to 36540 for the AMD part, a 24.8% advantage. This is one of the Intel chip’s most significant wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire comparison is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX scores 6822 against the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX’s 2187.5. That 211.9% delta is the largest margin in any test, underscoring a fundamental architectural advantage for Zen 5 in lightly threaded workloads. The R15 single-core test reinforces this, with AMD winning 687 to 323.5, a 112.4% lead. These results suggest that any application bottlenecked by a single thread — legacy code, certain database queries, or interactive workloads — will run more than twice as fast on the AMD platform.

Multi-core performance is more contested. The AMD part wins Cinebench R23 multi-core decisively, scoring 48325 against 36429.5, a 32.7% advantage. Yet in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part wins 5656.5 to 4871, a 13.9% margin. This discrepancy likely reflects scaling differences between the Cinebench versions. The R20 multi-core test is nearly a dead heat, with AMD winning 20296 to 20236, a 0.3% edge. PassMark multithread also lands within 0.1%, with Intel taking 56902 to AMD’s 56854. The overall picture is balanced in multi-threaded throughput, despite the Threadripper PRO’s R23 dominance.

Floating-point math is a clear Intel victory. The Core Ultra 9 285HX scores 194998 versus 111566 for the AMD part, a 42.8% advantage. This is mirrored in prime number finding, where Intel leads 460 to 335, a 27.2% margin. These results indicate that the Intel architecture handles vectorized floating-point operations more efficiently, making it the better choice for scientific computing and financial modeling. Conversely, integer math favors AMD substantially, with the Threadripper PRO scoring 185421 against 155076, a 19.6% lead. Physics simulation also heavily favors AMD, with a 6118 to 3476 score, a 76% advantage.

Data compression and encryption split the pair. AMD wins data compression with 671963 versus 631885, a 6.3% edge, while Intel dominates data encryption with 48567 versus 36540, a 24.8% lead. Extended instructions favor AMD, with a 54406 to 49148 score, a 10.7% advantage. Random string sorting goes to AMD, 84498 to 77196, a 9.5% margin. The single-threaded PassMark test is essentially tied, with Intel leading 4618 to 4573, a 1% difference, which contrasts sharply with the Cinebench single-core results and suggests workload-specific behavior.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal two processors designed for entirely different physical environments. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses the AMD Socket sTR5, a massive workstation platform, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses Intel BGA 2114, a soldered mobile socket. The TDP gap is enormous: 350W for AMD versus 55W for Intel. This 295W difference translates directly to cooling requirements and system form factor — the AMD part demands a serious workstation cooler and power delivery, while the Intel part can operate in a laptop.

Process technology differs by one nanometer node, with Intel using 3 nm and AMD using 4 nm, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are close: 17,800 million for Intel versus 16,630 million for AMD, but the die layouts diverge. Intel uses a single 243 mm² die, while AMD uses two 70.6 mm² chiplets totaling 141.2 mm². Cache configurations differ in both per-core and shared allocations, as detailed earlier. Memory channels are eight for AMD and two for Intel, with corresponding bandwidth figures of 409.6 GB/s and 102.4 GB/s. PCIe lane counts are 128 for AMD and 20 for Intel, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel part, with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD part lists N/A for integrated graphics. Both processors support ECC memory and have unlocked multipliers. Release dates differ by roughly five months, with Intel launching on 2025-01-12 and AMD on 2025-06-30. Market segments are explicitly different: Server/Workstation for AMD and Mobile for Intel. The series names reflect this: AMD’s 9000 series Threadripper PRO versus Intel’s Core Ultra Series 2. Part numbers are 100-000000726 for AMD and SRVFJ for Intel.