AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus shows a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel processor. Across the eleven recorded PassMark tests, Intel wins every single one, with no workloads where the AMD part manages to close the gap. The largest margin appears in floating-point math, where Intel scores 162,692 against AMD’s 34,511, a difference of 78.8 percent. This is not a close contest; the Intel part delivers roughly four times the floating-point throughput, a gap that suggests fundamentally different per-core capabilities and core counts working together.

In integer math, the Intel chip records 125,091 points versus 60,033 for AMD, a 52 percent advantage. That is the narrowest margin among the major compute workloads, but still a substantial lead. The multithread benchmark shows Intel at 51,596 against AMD’s 20,363, a 60.5 percent difference. Given that the Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads while the AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, the multithread result aligns with the raw hardware disparity, though the per-thread efficiency also favors Intel.

Single-thread performance tells a similar story. Intel scores 4,757 in the passmark_single_thread test, while AMD manages 2,941, a 38.2 percent lead for Intel. This is notable because single-thread performance is often considered a strong point for AMD’s Zen 3 architecture, yet the newer Intel design, based on Arrow Lake Refresh and manufactured on a 3 nm process, pulls ahead clearly. The physics test shows Intel at 3,494 versus AMD’s 2,282, a 34.7 percent advantage, the smallest delta in the entire set. Even in this closest result, Intel still wins by a third.

Data compression and encryption workloads further emphasize the gap. Intel scores 568,721 in data compression against AMD’s 230,392, a 59.5 percent difference. In data encryption, Intel records 42,144 versus AMD’s 13,967, a 66.9 percent lead. Extended instructions see Intel at 44,565 and AMD at 15,925, a 64.3 percent gap. Prime number finding, a workload that often responds to cache and memory latency, shows Intel at 486 versus AMD’s 170, a 65 percent difference. Random string sorting completes the picture with Intel at 69,090 and AMD at 23,675, a 65.7 percent margin.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall positioning. Intel’s average is 66,855, while AMD’s is 37,018. The Intel part sits at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while AMD is at the 85th percentile. In the nearest rival comparisons, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus sits within 1.1 percent of the Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, and within 0.9 percent of the Core Ultra 9 275HX, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D sits within 0.3 percent of the Core i9-12900T and within 0.2 percent of the Ryzen 5 5600F. These rival clusters underscore that the AMD part is competing in a lower performance tier, while the Intel part operates near the top of the desktop stack.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and manufacturing nodes. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process, also by TSMC. The process node difference of 7 nm versus 3 nm explains part of the performance and efficiency gap, though architectural changes matter more for the observed benchmark deltas.

Core counts differ dramatically. AMD provides 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel provides 18 cores and 18 threads. The Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count. AMD uses SMT, giving 12 threads from 6 cores. The Intel design therefore has three times the physical cores and 50 percent more threads than AMD’s SMT-enabled configuration. This explains why multithread workloads show such a large gap, though Intel’s per-core performance advantage also contributes.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. AMD uses a per-core L1 of 64 KB and per-core L2 of 512 KB, with a large shared L3 of 96 MB. Intel uses a per-core L1 of 192 KB and per-core L2 of 3 MB, with a smaller shared L3 of 30 MB. The AMD part’s 96 MB L3 is notable for a 6-core processor, likely reflecting the X3D variant’s stacked cache design, though the database does not list a separate vCache field. Intel’s larger per-core L2, at 3 MB, means each core has more private cache, which can help with latency-sensitive workloads. The total L1 difference is substantial: 192 KB per core on Intel versus 64 KB per core on AMD. With 18 cores, Intel’s aggregate L1 is far larger than AMD’s 6-core aggregate.

Memory support also diverges. AMD supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. Intel supports DDR5 memory, also dual-channel, but with a much higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. This more than doubles the theoretical memory bandwidth available to the Intel processor, which directly impacts workloads like data compression and random string sorting that are sensitive to memory throughput. Both processors support ECC memory, a shared feature.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. AMD uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while Intel uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The newer PCIe generation doubles the per-lane bandwidth on the Intel side, which matters for storage and graphics expansion, though the lane count is identical at 20.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Intel part, which includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD processor has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for display output. This is a functional difference that affects system design, though it does not directly influence the CPU benchmarks recorded.

Process node and die size also differ. Intel’s die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, while AMD’s die is 74 mm². Transistor count for AMD is not listed. The Intel die is more than three times larger, consistent with its higher core count and integrated graphics. The 3 nm process allows Intel to pack those transistors into a smaller area relative to what older nodes would require, but the die is still physically larger than AMD’s due to the sheer number of cores and components.

# Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head set, so there is no workload category where the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D takes a win. However, the magnitude of Intel’s advantage varies by workload, which reveals where each processor is relatively stronger or weaker.

Intel’s biggest relative advantage appears in floating-point math, with a 78.8 percent lead. This suggests the Intel design’s FPU throughput, combined with more cores, is exceptional. Workloads that depend heavily on floating-point operations, such as scientific simulations, certain rendering tasks, and some financial modeling, will see the largest benefit from the Intel part. The smallest Intel lead is in physics, at 34.7 percent. Physics benchmarks often involve both integer and floating-point operations with unpredictable memory access patterns, so the gap narrows but still favors Intel.

Single-thread performance shows Intel ahead by 38.2 percent. For lightly threaded applications like older games, web browsing, or single-threaded productivity tools, the Intel part provides a clear but not overwhelming advantage. The AMD part, despite being an older architecture, still delivers competitive single-thread numbers relative to its own generation, but it cannot match the newer Intel design.

Data compression and random string sorting, both memory-bandwidth-sensitive, show Intel leading by roughly 59 to 66 percent. The DDR5 memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus DDR4’s 51.2 GB/s gives Intel a structural advantage in these workloads. Even if AMD’s large 96 MB L3 cache helps with some data sets, the overall memory throughput difference dominates.

Encryption and extended instructions workloads show Intel ahead by 66.9 percent and 64.3 percent respectively. These workloads often use new instruction set extensions, and the Intel part’s newer architecture likely implements these more efficiently. Prime number finding, which is latency and cache sensitive, shows Intel ahead by 65 percent, indicating that even with AMD’s large shared L3, the Intel core design and higher clock speeds win out.

From a use-case perspective, the Intel part is the better choice for any compute-heavy desktop workload, from multithreaded rendering to data processing to single-threaded responsiveness. The AMD part, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, remains a functional desktop processor for basic tasks, but the data shows it is outperformed in every measured category. The AMD part’s only potential advantage outside raw performance is its older AM4 socket, which may be cheaper to build around, but the database does not provide pricing for AMD and the analysis here cannot address cost.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: AMD has 6, Intel has 18. Thread count: AMD has 12, Intel has 18. Base clock: AMD runs at 3.00 GHz, Intel at 4.20 GHz. Boost clock: AMD reaches 4.00 GHz, Intel reaches 5.30 GHz. Thermal design power: AMD is rated at 105 watts, Intel at 125 watts. Socket: AMD uses AM4, Intel uses Socket 1851. Process node: AMD uses 7 nm, Intel uses 3 nm. Both use TSMC as the foundry.

Cache configuration differs as described: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 96 MB shared L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3. Memory support: AMD uses DDR4, Intel uses DDR5, both dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: AMD at 51.2 GB/s, Intel at 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory is supported by both. PCIe: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: AMD has none, Intel has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 EU.

The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. This means the Intel processor can be overclocked more freely, assuming motherboard support, while the AMD part is locked. The Intel part launched with an MSRP of $199, which the database records. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates differ: AMD released on June 4, 2025, while Intel released on March 10, 2026. Both are marked as active in production. The Intel part carries a part number of SA4UZ, while AMD uses 100-000001504. The Intel part has a transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm², while AMD’s die size is 74 mm² with no transistor count listed.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D has 6 cores. The Intel part also has 18 threads, while AMD has 12 threads.

Q: Does the AMD processor support DDR5 memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel access and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports DDR5 memory with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is there a benchmark where the AMD processor wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head PassMark benchmarks, the Intel processor wins all 11 tests. The closest margin is in passmark_physics, where Intel leads by 34.7 percent.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel processor scores 4,757 in the passmark_single_thread test, while AMD scores 2,941. That is a 38.2 percent advantage for Intel.

Q: Does the Intel processor have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: AMD provides 51.2 GB/s with DDR4 memory. Intel provides 115.2 GB/s with DDR5 memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D does not have an unlocked multiplier.