PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Core Ultra 5 225F

2025

Why buy it

✅+3.3% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $231 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Core Ultra 5 225F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,500 vs 17,050).

Core Ultra 5 225F

2025

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅+3.3% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core.
✅20% more PCIe lanes (24 vs 20) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Core Ultra 5 225F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 across 2 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (20 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $231 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,500 vs 17,050).

Quick Answers

So, is Core Ultra 5 225F better than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is ahead with a 12.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 225F pulls ahead with 3.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 also has the bigger cache pool with 60% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 20 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core Ultra 5 225F is the better fit. You are getting 3.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 10 cores and 10 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core Ultra 5 225F is the smarter buy today. Core Ultra 5 225F is at an unclear MSRP at $231 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you 3.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core. The trade-off is that Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 12.6% average FPS lead across 2 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (136.5 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the safer long-term CPU choice because it gives you more overall headroom and a better platform outlook.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Core Ultra 5 225F Benchmark Check

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	256 FPS	277 FPS
medium	244 FPS	243 FPS
high	208 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	176 FPS	179 FPS
1440p
low	219 FPS	233 FPS
medium	187 FPS	185 FPS
high	154 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	133 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	150 FPS	162 FPS
medium	127 FPS	129 FPS
high	99 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	86 FPS	86 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	603 FPS	684 FPS
medium	512 FPS	565 FPS
high	421 FPS	460 FPS
ultra	378 FPS	417 FPS
1440p
low	501 FPS	591 FPS
medium	441 FPS	514 FPS
high	372 FPS	422 FPS
ultra	319 FPS	360 FPS
4K
low	301 FPS	352 FPS
medium	266 FPS	311 FPS
high	248 FPS	286 FPS
ultra	218 FPS	251 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	789 FPS	788 FPS
medium	680 FPS	788 FPS
high	609 FPS	706 FPS
ultra	522 FPS	594 FPS
1440p
low	725 FPS	788 FPS
medium	588 FPS	644 FPS
high	515 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	439 FPS	472 FPS
4K
low	504 FPS	562 FPS
medium	422 FPS	459 FPS
high	377 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	318 FPS	338 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	789 FPS	788 FPS
medium	789 FPS	788 FPS
high	777 FPS	788 FPS
ultra	699 FPS	781 FPS
1440p
low	789 FPS	788 FPS
medium	716 FPS	768 FPS
high	623 FPS	673 FPS
ultra	547 FPS	590 FPS
4K
low	560 FPS	609 FPS
medium	510 FPS	541 FPS
high	457 FPS	486 FPS
ultra	402 FPS	426 FPS

Open Core Ultra 5 225F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core Ultra 5 225F and Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Core Ultra 5 225F

The Core Ultra 5 225F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 7 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture. It features 10 cores and 10 threads. Base frequency is 3.3 GHz, with boost up to 4.9 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB (total). L2 cache: 3 MB (per core). Built on 3 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1851. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-6400. Passmark benchmark score: 31,541 points. Launch price was $231.

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Strix Halo (2025) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP11. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 31,508 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core Ultra 5 225F packs 10 cores / 10 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Core Ultra 5 225F has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.9 GHz on the Core Ultra 5 225F versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 — a 2% clock advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (base: 3.3 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core Ultra 5 225F uses the Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) architecture (3 nm), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses Strix Halo (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core Ultra 5 225F scores 31,541 against the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385's 31,508 — a 0.1% lead for the Core Ultra 5 225F. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 17,050 vs 16,500 (3.3% advantage for the Core Ultra 5 225F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,653 vs 2,886, a 8.4% lead for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 13,028 vs 14,136 (8.2% advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). L3 cache: 20 MB (total) on the Core Ultra 5 225F vs 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Cores / Threads	10 / 10+25%	8 / 16
Boost Clock	4.9 GHz	5 GHz+2%
Base Clock	3.3 GHz	3.6 GHz+9%
L3 Cache	20 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+60%
L2 Cache	3 MB (per core)+200%	1 MB (per core)
Process	3 nm-25%	4 nm
Architecture	Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025)	Strix Halo (2025)
PassMark	31,541	31,508
Cinebench R23 Multi	17,050+3%	16,500
Geekbench 6 Single	2,653	2,886+9%
Geekbench 6 Multi	13,028	14,136+9%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core Ultra 5 225F uses the LGA1851 socket (PCIe 5.0), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses FP11 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-6400 memory speed. The Core Ultra 5 225F supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core Ultra 5 225F) vs 8 (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). PCIe lanes: 24 (Core Ultra 5 225F) vs 20 (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385) — the Core Ultra 5 225F offers 4 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Z890,B860 (Core Ultra 5 225F) and Strix Halo platform (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385).

Feature	Core Ultra 5 225F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Socket	LGA1851	FP11
PCIe Generation	PCIe 5.0+25%	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-6400	LPDDR5x-8000
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+100%	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	24+20%	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d (Core Ultra 5 225F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 8050S), while the Core Ultra 5 225F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 targets Enterprise AI Mobile. Direct competitor: Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 rivals M3 Max.