AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 VS Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

At a foundational level, both the AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H share a 28W TDP, integrated graphics, and full 64-bit support — making them comparable in power envelope and basic feature parity. However, the differences in silicon and platform reveal meaningful distinctions. The Core Ultra 7 255H is built on a 3 nm process versus the Ryzen 7 Pro 250's 4 nm, which generally translates to better transistor density and potential for improved power efficiency or performance per watt at the same thermal budget.

On connectivity, the Core Ultra 7 255H supports PCIe 5.0 while the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 tops out at PCIe 4.0. In practical terms, PCIe 5.0 doubles the available bandwidth over PCIe 4.0, which matters for the fastest NVMe SSDs and high-bandwidth discrete GPUs — a forward-looking advantage for users who want to leverage next-generation storage speeds. The Core Ultra 7 255H also carries a higher maximum CPU temperature ceiling of 110 °C versus 100 °C, giving it slightly more thermal headroom before throttling, which can be advantageous in sustained workloads under thin-and-light cooling constraints.

One notable distinction in scope: the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 is positioned for both desktop and laptop deployments, whereas the Core Ultra 7 255H is a laptop-only chip. For buyers evaluating a mobile platform specifically, this distinction is irrelevant — but it does highlight the AMD chip's broader deployment flexibility in enterprise or embedded contexts. Overall, Intel holds the edge in this group thanks to its more advanced process node and PCIe 5.0 support, both of which point to a more future-ready platform.

The AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 has a CPU speed of 8 cores running at 3.3 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is configured with 6 cores at 2 GHz and 8 cores at 1.5 GHz. This results in a slightly more complex configuration for the Intel chip, with a lower base clock speed for some of its cores. Both processors offer a turbo clock speed of 5.1 GHz, meaning they can boost to the same high speed under load, providing strong performance in demanding tasks.

Both processors feature 16 threads, allowing them to handle multi-threaded workloads efficiently. The L3 cache on the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 is 16 MB, while the Core Ultra 7 255H has a larger 24 MB cache, which could improve performance in certain tasks that benefit from a larger cache.

In terms of architectural features, the AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 does not use big.LITTLE technology, whereas the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H does. This means the Intel chip uses a combination of high-performance and energy-efficient cores, which can lead to more efficient power management. Both chips have a locked multiplier, meaning they cannot be overclocked, and the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 has a clock multiplier of 33, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a multiplier of 20.

The AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 achieves a PassMark result of 23,279, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H scores higher with 30,756. This indicates that, based on overall performance, the Intel processor outperforms the AMD option in multi-threaded workloads or general processing tasks.

When considering single-threaded performance, the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 has a PassMark result of 3,795, while the Core Ultra 7 255H achieves a higher score of 4,373. This shows that the Intel processor also has an edge in tasks that rely more heavily on single-thread performance.

Both processors exhibit significant differences in benchmark results, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H leading in both overall and single-thread performance metrics.

The AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 is equipped with the Radeon 780M GPU, which has a GPU clock speed of 800 MHz and can turbo boost up to 2,700 MHz. In comparison, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H features the Arc 140T GPU, with a lower base clock speed of 300 MHz but a higher turbo clock speed of 2,250 MHz. Both processors support up to 4 displays and offer DirectX 12 support, with the Intel processor also supporting the more advanced DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Both products support OpenGL 4.6, but the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H offers a more recent OpenCL version, 3.0, compared to the Ryzen 7 Pro 250’s OpenCL 2.1 support.

When it comes to graphical processing power, the Ryzen 7 Pro 250's GPU has 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), 32 render output units (ROPs), and 768 shading units. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's Arc 140T GPU, on the other hand, has 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 1,024 shading units, offering potentially more graphical performance in terms of texture handling and shading capabilities.

The AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 supports a maximum RAM speed of 7,500 MHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports a slightly higher maximum RAM speed of 8,400 MHz. Both processors use DDR5 memory and have 2 memory channels, ensuring fast and efficient data transfer between the CPU and RAM.

In terms of memory capacity, the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 supports up to 256 GB of RAM, which is double the maximum memory of 128 GB supported by the Core Ultra 7 255H. Both processors do not support ECC (Error-Correcting Code) memory, meaning they are more suitable for consumer-level systems rather than enterprise-grade applications requiring error correction.

Overall, the Ryzen 7 Pro 250 offers more memory capacity, while the Core Ultra 7 255H supports a higher RAM speed, though both processors share similar memory architecture with DDR5 and 2 memory channels.

Both the AMD Ryzen 7 Pro 250 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H support the same set of instruction sets, including MMX, F16C, FMA3, AES, AVX, AVX2, SSE 4.1, and SSE 4.2, enabling compatibility with a wide range of applications and workloads.

The Ryzen 7 Pro 250 supports multithreading, allowing it to handle multiple tasks simultaneously, which can enhance performance in certain applications. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H does not support multithreading, meaning it can handle fewer tasks at the same time compared to the Ryzen processor.

Both processors have the NX bit enabled, a security feature that helps protect against certain types of attacks, providing additional protection for both systems.