AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 represent two distinct philosophies in desktop computing: one is a high-core-count behemoth, the other a compact, efficient workstation part. The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy, but the underlying specifications reveal that these chips are designed for very different workloads. The Intel part dominates the head-to-head results across the board, yet the AMD chip's positioning in the server/workstation segment suggests its value lies in specific, niche applications rather than raw throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from the head-to-head comparison is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 11 benchmark comparisons, with no victories for the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745. This is a comprehensive sweep that underscores the substantial difference in their target markets. The most dramatic margin is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 459 against AMD's 188, a delta of 144.1%. This test is highly sensitive to integer arithmetic and memory latency, and the result indicates a massive advantage for Intel's architecture in this specific workload.

Similarly, the floating-point math test shows Intel at 194,988 versus AMD's 82,461, a 136.5% lead. This is a core capability for scientific computing, 3D rendering, and any task that relies heavily on vectorized instructions. The data encryption test shows a 105.5% delta (46,949 vs 22,848), suggesting Intel's implementation is significantly more efficient at cryptographic operations. The physics test, which often reflects gaming and simulation performance, shows Intel ahead by 77.6% (3,598 vs 2,026). While the Intel chip is not typically marketed as a gaming processor, this result is notable.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Intel part maintains a commanding lead. The PassMark multithread score is 56,602 versus 38,201, a 48.2% advantage. This pattern continues in data compression (602,121 vs 457,211, +31.7%), integer math (164,869 vs 124,167, +32.8%), and random string sorting (73,651 vs 49,219, +49.6%). The extended instructions test shows a smaller but still significant 23.3% lead (45,357 vs 36,800). The only area where the AMD chip comes close is in single-threaded performance, where Intel scores 4,881 versus 4,624, a mere 5.6% delta. This is a narrow margin, indicating that for lightly-threaded tasks, the two processors are much closer in capability. However, the overall pattern is clear: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is categorically faster in every benchmark category measured.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 scores 74,761. This is a difference of less than 1%, placing both in the same performance tier overall.

Q: What is the performance delta between the two in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In the PassMark multithread test, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 56,602, which is 48.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745's score of 38,201.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 competitive in any benchmark category?

A: The data shows that the AMD chip does not win any of the 11 head-to-head benchmarks. Its closest result is in the single-thread tests, where it trails by only 5.6%, scoring 4,624 versus Intel's 4,881.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8224P (delta -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4545P (delta 0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D (delta -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 (delta -0.3%). All of these are within a fraction of a percent of its average score.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 features 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the TDP of both processors?

A: Both the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 have a TDP of 65 watts.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the superior processor for any task that leverages multiple cores or heavy computational loads. Its 48.2% advantage in multi-threaded performance, coupled with a 136.5% lead in floating-point math, makes it the clear choice for content creation, scientific simulation, and data processing. The data shows a near-total sweep, with Intel winning all 11 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745, however, is not without merit. Its 5.6% deficit in single-threaded performance is small, and its 95th percentile ranking places it among the top processors available. For users whose primary workloads are lightly threaded and who prioritize the AMD platform's specific features, the Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 remains a viable option. However, the raw performance data indicates that the Intel chip offers a dramatically higher level of compute capability for demanding applications.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel chip's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, whereas the AMD chip operates at a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz but a lower boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Both have a 65 W TDP. The Intel part uses the Intel Socket 1851, while the AMD chip uses the AMD Socket AM5. The Intel's cache configuration is larger, with a 36 MB shared L3 cache, compared to the AMD's 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel chip also has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus the AMD's 89.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 memory and have ECC support. The PCIe configurations differ, with Intel offering Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only) and AMD offering Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics also differ, with Intel featuring Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU and AMD featuring Radeon Graphics. The Intel part is positioned for the Desktop market segment, while the AMD chip is listed for the Server/Workstation segment.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-S codename, using a 3 nm process node from TSMC. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 uses the Granite Ridge codename, part of the 9000 series, built on a 4 nm process node, also from TSMC. It has 8,315 million transistors on a much smaller 70.6 mm² die. The L1 and L2 cache sizes differ per core: Intel has 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, while AMD has 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The Intel part's L3 cache is 36 MB shared, while the AMD's is 32 MB shared. Neither part features 3D V-Cache. The Intel part is unlocked for overclocking, while the AMD chip is not. The Intel chip was released in late 2024, while the AMD chip was released in late 2025. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD chip has no listed launch MSRP. The Intel part's generation is listed as "Ultra 9 (Arrow Lake)," and the AMD's is "Ryzen 7 (Zen 5 (Granite Ridge))." The Intel uses a 3 nm process, which is smaller than the AMD's 4 nm process.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every benchmark category where data is available. Its most significant victories are in compute-heavy tasks like prime number finding (144.1% delta) and floating-point math (136.5% delta). It is also substantially ahead in multi-threaded workloads, with a 48.2% advantage in the PassMark multithread test. This makes it the clear winner for video editing, 3D rendering, software compilation, and any form of data analysis or simulation that can utilize its 24 cores. Its lead in data encryption (105.5%) also makes it a stronger choice for security-sensitive applications or file compression tasks. The Intel chip's higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) further supports its advantage in data-intensive workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745's only competitive area is single-threaded performance, where it trails by a modest 5.6%. This suggests it could be a reasonable choice for applications that are primarily single-threaded, such as older legacy software or certain database queries that cannot be parallelized. Its smaller die size (70.6 mm²) and lower transistor count (8,315 million) may also indicate better power efficiency per core, though the TDP is identical at 65 W. Given its classification as a Server/Workstation part, it may be intended for environments where its 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (versus Intel's 20) and specific platform features are more important than raw CPU throughput. For a workstation that prioritizes I/O expansion over compute density, the AMD chip could be the more appropriate choice, despite its lower benchmark scores.