FindAlternative
Back to Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

Intel Core Ultra 7 255H vs AMD Ryzen 7 8840U

Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, ratings, and alternatives.

Compare
Intel Core Ultra 7 255H
Intel Core Ultra 7 255HHigh-performance hybrid processor for laptops
AMD Ryzen 7 8840U
AMD Ryzen 7 8840UPowerful 8-core processor for laptops
Overview
Description

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H is a high-performance hybrid processor designed for laptops, featuring a combination of Performance-cores (P-cores) and Efficiency-cores (E-cores) for efficient processing. With its advanced architecture and integrated graphics, this processor delivers fast performance and long battery life.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8840U is a high-performance processor designed for laptops. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock speed of 3.3 GHz and a boost clock speed of up to 5.1 GHz.

Pricing
โ€”
Paid (One-time)

[]

Category
Processors (CPUs)
Processors (CPUs)
Best for
Gamers, content creators, and professionals
Gamers, Content Creators, Productivity Users
Specifications
Spec source
Verified
AI-estimated
Cache & Power
tdp
28W (base), 115W (max turbo)
28W (15-30W)
cache
24MB+200%
8 MB L2, 16 MB L3
process node
TSMC N3B (3nm)
TSMC 4nm FinFET
Core & Clock
cores
16 (6P + 8E + 2LP)+100%
8
threads
16
16
base clock
2.0 GHz (P-core)
3.3 GHz+65%
boost clock
5.1 GHz
Up to 5.1 GHz
General
socket
FCBGA2049
FP7, FP7r2, FP8
release date
2025-Q1
โ€”
benchmark score
โ€”
โ€”
Graphics & Memory
integrated graphics
Intel Arc 140T (8 Xe-cores, up to 2.25 GHz)
AMD Radeon 780M+457%
Specifications
npu performance
โ€”
Up to 16 TOPS
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • High-performance processing
  • Efficient processing with low power consumption
  • Advanced security features
  • Integrated graphics with AI-enhanced capabilities
  • High-performance processing with 8 cores and 16 threads
  • Integrated graphics with AMD Radeon 780M
  • Low power consumption with a TDP of 28W
  • Supports PCIe 4.0 for faster storage and peripherals connectivity
Cons
  • Limited availability
  • High cost
  • Thermal management challenges
  • Limited software optimization
  • May not be suitable for extreme overclocking due to its low TDP
  • Limited availability in certain regions
  • May require specific cooling solutions due to its high-performance capabilities
Community & Metrics
Upvotes
0
0
User rating
Not enough data
Not enough data

More alternatives & similar tools

Alternatives to Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

View all โ†’
Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

High-performance mobile processor with 16 cores

Compare
AMD Ryzen 7 8840U
AMD Ryzen 7 8840U

Powerful 8-core processor for laptops

Compare
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H
Intel Core Ultra 9 285H

A high-performance mobile processor designed for gamers and demanding creators.

Compare
Apple M4
Apple M4

A revolutionary CPU redefining power and efficiency with a cutting-edge 3nm process.

Compare

Alternatives to AMD Ryzen 7 8840U

View all โ†’
Intel Core Ultra 7 255H
Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

High-performance hybrid processor for laptops

Compare
Intel Core Ultra 7 356H
Intel Core Ultra 7 356H

High-performance mobile processor with 16 cores

Compare

The Verdict

AI-generated from listing data

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H offers higher core counts and newer 3nm architecture, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8840U provides a mature 4nm option with 8 MB L2 and 16 MB L3 cache. The main trade-off is between Intel's hybrid 16-core architecture with Arc 140T graphics versus AMD's proven 8-core layout with Radeon 780M graphics and explicit PCIe 4.0 support.

Key differences

  • โ€ขCore Architecture: Intel features 16 cores (6P + 8E + 2LP) with a 2.0 GHz base clock, whereas AMD features 8 cores and 16 threads with a 3.3 GHz base clock.
  • โ€ขGraphics: Intel uses Intel Arc 140T integrated graphics (up to 2.25 GHz with 8 Xe-cores), while AMD uses AMD Radeon 780M graphics.
  • โ€ขManufacturing Process: Intel is built on the TSMC N3B 3nm process node, compared to AMD's TSMC 4nm FinFET process.
  • โ€ขCache and TDP Details: Intel has a 24MB cache with a 115W max turbo TDP, whereas AMD features 8 MB L2 and 16 MB L3 cache with a 28W (15-30W) TDP.
  • โ€ขConnectivity and NPU: AMD explicitly supports PCIe 4.0 and lists NPU performance up to 16 TOPS, whereas Intel supports up to 6400 MT/s DDR5/LPDDR5 memory and hardware-based security technologies.
DimensionWinner

Performance

Intel offers 16 cores (6 Performance, 8 Efficiency, 2 Low Power) and a 5.1 GHz boost clock, backed by TSMC N3B 3nm nodes.

Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

Build quality

Not specified in the provided facts for either processor.

Tie

Connectivity

AMD explicitly supports PCIe 4.0 for faster storage and peripherals connectivity; Intel connectivity details are not fully specified.

AMD Ryzen 7 8840U

Power & efficiency

Intel utilizes a TSMC N3B 3nm process node for improved performance and efficiency with a 28W base and 115W max turbo TDP.

Intel Core Ultra 7 255H

Compatibility

Both fit laptop platforms via distinct sockets (Intel uses FCBGA2049; AMD uses FP7, FP7r2, and FP8 sockets).

Tie

Price & value

AMD pricing is listed as Paid (One-time), whereas Intel pricing is entirely unknown.

AMD Ryzen 7 8840U

Warranty & support

Warranty and support details are not specified for either product.

Tie

Choose Intel Core Ultra 7 255H ifโ€ฆ

Choose Intel for maximum core counts, 3nm process technology, and AI-enhanced integrated Arc graphics.

Choose AMD Ryzen 7 8840U ifโ€ฆ

Choose AMD for a reliable 8-core mobile CPU with Radeon 780M graphics and PCIe 4.0 support.

Common questions

What are the core and thread configurations for both processors?

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores (6 Performance, 8 Efficiency, and 2 LP) and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840U features 8 cores and 16 threads.

What integrated graphics do these processors use?

Intel uses the Intel Arc 140T integrated graphics with 8 Xe-cores up to 2.25 GHz. AMD uses the AMD Radeon 780M graphics.

What are the power consumption and thermal details?

Intel has a 28W base TDP and a 115W max turbo TDP using the 3nm N3B process. AMD features a 28W (15-30W) TDP using the 4nm FinFET process.