AMD Ryzen 5 7400 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 and Intel Core Ultra 3 205 represent two distinct approaches to the desktop processor segment in late 2025. The Ryzen 5 7400 is a 6-core, 12-thread Zen 4 part built on a 5 nm process, while the Core Ultra 3 205 is an 8-core, 8-thread Arrow Lake chip on a 3 nm node. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear split: the Intel part wins 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, including the heavier multi-threaded and single-thread workloads, while the AMD part wins 3 tests, primarily in integer math and compression. The average benchmark score tells a different story at first glance: the Ryzen 5 7400 posts 42055 against the Core Ultra 3 205’s 31473, but that figure is skewed by the Intel part’s inclusion of Cinebench scores in its dataset. This analysis examines where each processor delivers its wins, what the architecture implies, and which workloads favor which chip.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 physical cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 physical cores. However, the AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it 12 threads total, whereas the Intel part has 8 threads (one per core).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 scores 4575, which is 29% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s 3248. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz compared to 4.30 GHz on the AMD.

Q: Which processor wins in floating-point math?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins decisively, scoring 75136 in PassMark floating-point math, which is 45.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s 40784. This is one of the largest deltas in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 does not. Both processors support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 is built on a 5 nm process by TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses a 3 nm process, also from TSMC. The Intel part has a larger die size at 243 mm² versus 71 mm² for the AMD.

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-threaded PassMark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 scores 26167 in PassMark multithread, which is 17% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s 21712. This occurs despite the AMD part having 12 threads versus the Intel’s 8.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 dominates in workloads that stress raw throughput per core and vector math. Its wins include data encryption (18772 vs 14865, 20.8% ahead), extended instructions (22578 vs 19924, 11.8% ahead), prime number finding (268 vs 79, 70.5% ahead), floating-point math (75136 vs 40784, 45.7% ahead), multithread (26167 vs 21712, 17% ahead), physics (2016 vs 1150, 43% ahead), and single-thread (4575 vs 3248, 29% ahead). The single-thread and floating-point margins are particularly large, suggesting the Core Ultra 3 205’s higher boost clock and newer architecture translate directly into per-core efficiency gains.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 wins in three specific tests: data compression (261749 vs 260651, a narrow 0.4% margin), integer math (64733 vs 54755, 18.2% ahead), and random string sorting (31110 vs 31083, 0.1% ahead). The integer math win is substantial and indicates that the AMD part’s 12 threads can be leveraged effectively in workloads that scale with thread count and integer operations. The compression and sorting wins are marginal, within 0.4% and 0.1% respectively, meaning those tests are essentially a tie in practical terms.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 suits workloads like encryption, scientific floating-point simulations, physics calculations, and general single-thread responsiveness. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 suits integer-heavy tasks such as database operations, certain compilers, and compression algorithms where the extra threads help.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, built on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The cache hierarchy is 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The transistor count is 6,570 million on a 71 mm² die.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It has 8 cores and 8 threads (no hyperthreading), with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy is 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 15 MB shared L3. The transistor count is 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die.

The most significant architectural difference is the thread count. The AMD part relies on simultaneous multithreading to double its 6 cores into 12 logical threads, while the Intel part uses 8 physical cores with no SMT. The Intel part has a smaller shared L3 (15 MB vs 16 MB) but much larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (192 KB vs 64 KB L1, 3 MB vs 1 MB L2). The process node advantage (3 nm vs 5 nm) and higher boost clock (4.90 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) explain much of the Intel part’s single-thread lead.

Another key difference is the memory bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 supports 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 83.2 GB/s for the AMD part, a 23% advantage. Both use dual-channel DDR5, but the Intel part’s memory controller appears to be more efficient or faster. The Intel part also has fewer PCIe lanes (20 vs 24) but both are Gen 5. The Intel part uses integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU, while the AMD part uses Radeon Graphics; the database does not include comparative iGPU benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 7400 | Intel Core Ultra 3 205 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 57 W |

| Process node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 6,570 million | 17,800 million |

| Die size | 71 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache (per core) | 64 KB | 192 KB |

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

| L3 cache (shared) | 16 MB | 15 MB |

| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC support | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Release date | 2025-09-15 | 2025-07-31 |

The Intel part has a lower TDP (57 W vs 65 W) despite having more physical cores and a higher boost clock. The AMD part has a higher thread count, ECC support, and an unlocked multiplier, suggesting overclocking capability. The Intel part has a much larger transistor count and die size, reflecting the more complex Arrow Lake design on the 3 nm node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is in prime number finding, where it scores 268 against the AMD’s 79, a 70.5% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to single-thread performance and integer instruction efficiency, and the Intel part’s higher boost clock and newer architecture deliver a massive margin. The second-largest win is in floating-point math, where Intel leads 75136 to 40784, a 45.7% difference. This suggests the Arrow Lake design has significantly stronger FPU throughput per core.

The physics test shows a 43% lead for Intel (2016 vs 1150), which aligns with the floating-point advantage. Single-thread performance is 29% higher (4575 vs 3248), and this gap likely propagates into the extended instructions test (11.8% lead) and data encryption (20.8% lead). The multithread score favors Intel by 17% (26167 vs 21712), which is notable because the AMD part has 12 threads versus 8, yet still loses. This indicates that Intel’s 8 physical cores at higher clocks outperform AMD’s 6 cores with SMT in this workload.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s largest win is in integer math, where it scores 64733 against 54755, an 18.2% advantage. This is a significant margin and suggests that the AMD part’s SMT implementation helps in integer-heavy parallel workloads. The data compression win is minimal at 0.4% (261749 vs 260651), and random string sorting is essentially tied at 0.1% (31110 vs 31083). These narrow wins indicate that the two processors are comparable in memory-bound sorting and compression tasks, with the AMD part holding a slight edge.

The average benchmark scores, when considering only PassMark tests, would place the Intel part ahead in most categories. However, the database’s overall average (42055 for AMD vs 31473 for Intel) includes Cinebench scores for the Intel part that are not present for the AMD part, making a direct comparison of those averages misleading. The head-to-head PassMark results are the more reliable indicator.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the stronger processor for most measured workloads. It wins 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, with particularly large margins in prime number finding (70.5%), floating-point math (45.7%), physics (43%), and single-thread (29%). Its 8 physical cores and higher boost clock (4.90 GHz) deliver superior per-core performance, and the lower TDP (57 W vs 65 W) means it achieves this with less power draw. The Intel part also benefits from higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s vs 83.2 GB/s), which supports its wins in encryption and multithread tests.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 wins in integer math by a substantial 18.2%, and it narrowly edges out the Intel part in data compression and random string sorting. Its 12 threads provide an advantage in integer-heavy parallel workloads that scale with thread count. The AMD part also supports ECC memory and has an unlocked multiplier, which are feature advantages for specific use cases such as error-sensitive computing or overclocking. The 6-core design with SMT is more power-efficient in terms of die size (71 mm² vs 243 mm²), though the TDP is higher.

For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, floating-point scientific computing, encryption, or physics simulations, the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is the clear choice based on the recorded benchmark data. For users running integer-heavy compilation, database workloads, or compression tasks, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s integer math lead and thread count make it competitive, though its overall win count is lower. The Intel part’s release date (2025-07-31) precedes the AMD part (2025-09-15), and its launch MSRP is $140, but pricing considerations are separate from performance analysis.

The benchmark results suggest that the Core Ultra 3 205’s newer 3 nm process and higher clocks give it a broad performance advantage, while the Ryzen 5 7400’s strengths are more specialized. The 18.2% integer math win for AMD is the only test where the margin exceeds 1% in its favor, whereas Intel leads by more than 10% in five separate tests. The practical implication is that the Intel part delivers more consistent performance across varied workloads, while the AMD part is a niche winner in specific integer-bound scenarios.