AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T records an average benchmark score of 30468, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 records 25782. The Intel part sits at the 82nd percentile of all CPUs, compared to the AMD part's 78th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T scores 21971 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 scores 17857. That is an 18.7% advantage for Intel, a gap that repeats across the entire Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suite.

Q: In which single benchmark does the AMD Ryzen 5 230 take the lead?

A: The AMD chip wins PassMark integer math with a score of 67257 versus 59543 for Intel, a 13% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test where AMD comes out ahead.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 3101 versus AMD's 2521, a difference of 18.7%. PassMark single-thread shows the same margin: 4348 for Intel versus 3558 for AMD, an 18.2% gap.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of power efficiency?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has a TDP of 65 watts. The AMD chip delivers its scores at a much lower thermal envelope.

Q: Which processor has more transistors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. It is a 6-core, 12-thread design with simultaneous multithreading. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T uses the Arrow Lake architecture (Arrow Lake-S codename) on TSMC's 3 nm process, and it is a 10-core, 10-thread design without hyperthreading.

The cache layouts differ substantially. AMD assigns 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. Intel assigns 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 20 MB of shared L3. The Intel part therefore has more total cache at every level.

Memory bandwidth also differs. Both support DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, but Intel records 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. Both processors lack ECC support and both have locked multipliers. The AMD part is a mobile processor on Socket FP8, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Socket 1851.

PCIe generation differs: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: AMD pairs with a Radeon 760M, Intel with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. Neither processor is unlocked for overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The margins vary from modest to overwhelming.

In Cinebench, the pattern is consistent. R15 multi-core: Intel 2214 versus AMD 1799, an 18.7% gap. R15 single-core: Intel 312 versus AMD 253, an 18.9% gap. R20 multi-core: Intel 9227 versus AMD 7499, an 18.7% gap. R20 single-core: Intel 1302 versus AMD 1058, an 18.7% gap. R23 multi-core: Intel 21971 versus AMD 17857, an 18.7% gap. R23 single-core: Intel 3101 versus AMD 2521, an 18.7% gap. The consistency of the delta across all six Cinebench tests indicates a uniform clock-for-clock advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

PassMark results show a wider spread. The largest Intel win comes in find prime numbers: 284 versus 66, a 76.8% advantage. Floating point math also heavily favors Intel: 82751 versus 38993, a 52.9% gap. Physics shows a 53.3% margin (2053 versus 958). Data encryption favors Intel by 27.4% (18289 versus 13280). Extended instructions favor Intel by 22.2% (20083 versus 15618). Multithread favors Intel by 23.5% (25358 versus 19411). Random string sorting favors Intel by 9.6% (28774 versus 26019). Data compression favors Intel by 6.6% (233998 versus 218588). Single-thread favors Intel by 18.2% (4348 versus 3558).

The sole AMD win is PassMark integer math: 67257 versus 59543, a 13% advantage. This result stands out because Intel leads in every other computational workload, including floating point and extended instructions. The integer math result suggests the AMD architecture handles certain integer-heavy workloads more efficiently, though it does not translate into overall wins elsewhere.

The Verdict

The data positions the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T clearly ahead in aggregate compute. Its average benchmark score of 30468 versus 25782 places it 18.2% higher overall, and it holds the 82nd percentile versus AMD's 78th. The Intel part wins every Cinebench test by an identical 18.7% margin, which indicates a fundamental per-thread performance advantage rather than a scaling artifact.

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 has one concrete strength: integer math. Its 13% lead in PassMark integer math is the only head-to-head victory, and it comes with a dramatically lower TDP of 28 watts versus Intel's 65 watts. For workloads that stress integer operations and for systems where thermal headroom is the primary constraint, the AMD part has a measurable edge.

However, in every other category, from rendering to encryption to floating point to physics, the Intel part is the faster processor. The margins range from 6.6% in data compression to 76.8% in prime number finding. The Intel part also holds advantages in memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), cache capacity (20 MB L3 versus 16 MB), and PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 230 | Intel Core Ultra 5 225T |

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

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 10 / 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB shared | 20 MB shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 760M | Arc Xe-LPG 16EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

The Intel part has more cores (10 versus 6) but fewer threads (10 versus 12) because it lacks SMT. The base clocks differ significantly: AMD runs at 3.50 GHz versus Intel's 2.50 GHz, yet both boost to 4.90 GHz. The AMD part uses a smaller die with more transistors, while the Intel part uses a larger die with fewer transistors. The Intel part provides more cache per core, more L3 total, and higher memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 225T wins in rendering workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21971 versus 17857 makes it the stronger choice for CPU-based 3D rendering, video encoding, and any all-core throughput task. The identical 18.7% delta across R15, R20, and R23 confirms this advantage scales with thread count and duration.

The Intel part also dominates math-intensive workloads. Its floating point score of 82751 versus 38993 (52.9% ahead) and prime number score of 284 versus 66 (76.8% ahead) indicate superior execution units for scientific computing, simulations, and numerical analysis. The physics score of 2053 versus 958 (53.3% ahead) reinforces this for game physics and similar real-time calculations.

The Intel part leads in security and data processing tasks. Data encryption scores 18289 versus 13280 (27.4% ahead), extended instructions score 20083 versus 15618 (22.2% ahead), and data compression scores 233998 versus 218588 (6.6% ahead). Multithread throughput favors Intel by 23.5% (25358 versus 19411).

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins in integer-heavy workloads. Its PassMark integer math score of 67257 versus 59543 (13% ahead) makes it the better choice for integer arithmetic, which appears in certain database operations, financial calculations, and legacy software paths. This is the only head-to-head win, but it is a real one.

The AMD part also wins on power efficiency. Its 28 watt TDP versus Intel's 65 watts means it can sustain its performance in thermally constrained environments, including thin-and-light laptops and fanless designs. For mobile deployments where battery life and heat dissipation are priorities, the AMD part offers a lower thermal footprint while still delivering competitive thread performance due to SMT.