AMD Ryzen 5 220 vs Intel Core i5-12500H Comparison

The Intel Core i5-12500H and AMD Ryzen 5 220 represent two contrasting approaches to mobile processing: one is a high-core-count hybrid design from Intel’s 12th Gen family, while the other is a leaner, more efficient Zen 4 part from AMD’s Hawk Point line. Benchmark data shows the Intel part winning 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the AMD chip claims victory in single-threaded workloads and specific instruction-heavy tasks. Their overall average benchmark scores are close—22,625 for the Intel against 22,289 for the AMD—placing them within 1.5% of each other in aggregate performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-12500H is the clear choice for multi-threaded and parallel workloads. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Intel part wins both multi-core and single-core iterations by a consistent margin of roughly 28%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 19,840 versus the AMD’s 15,502, a 28% advantage that reflects its 12 cores and 16 threads against the AMD’s 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part also dominates in PassMark’s data compression (253,431 vs 212,739, +19.1%), integer math (71,714 vs 57,987, +23.7%), and floating-point math (52,227 vs 35,500, +47.1%). Its multi-thread PassMark score of 20,625 is 11% higher than the AMD’s 18,582, reinforcing its lead in heavily parallel scenarios like rendering, encoding, and scientific simulations.

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 wins in single-threaded performance and specific instruction-level tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,646 beats the Intel’s 3,418 by 6.3%, which indicates faster per-core execution for lightly threaded applications. The AMD also wins PassMark’s extended instructions test (15,512 vs 14,965, +3.5%) and find prime numbers (65 vs 57, +12.3%). These wins suggest the Zen 4 architecture handles certain integer-heavy and SIMD-style workloads more efficiently. For users whose software relies on a few fast cores—like legacy games or single-threaded productivity apps—the AMD part offers a measurable edge, though its overall multi-core deficit makes it less versatile for modern high-thread-count tasks.

The aggregate benchmark percentile ranking reflects this split: the Intel sits at the 76th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD is at the 75th. The AMD’s nearest rival list includes the Intel Core i7-10700K with a deltaPct of 0.3%, meaning the Ryzen 5 220 is roughly on par with a desktop part from two generations earlier. The Intel’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7535U at -0.7%, showing that the 12500H outperforms a similarly positioned AMD mobile chip by a small margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 220, based on PassMark single-thread scores (3,646 vs 3,418, a 6.3% advantage). This suggests faster per-core execution for single-threaded applications.

Q: How much faster is the Intel chip in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H is consistently 28% faster across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. For example, in R23 multi-core, it scores 19,840 versus the AMD’s 15,502.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 220 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, it wins 4 out of 17 head-to-head tests: PassMark single-thread, extended instructions, find prime numbers, and the duplicate singlethread test. Its wins are concentrated in instruction-level and single-core workloads.

Q: What is the difference in aggregate benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H has an average benchmark score of 22,625, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 scores 22,289—a 1.5% difference in favor of Intel. Both sit within the 75th-76th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-12500H has 12 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This core advantage drives Intel’s large leads in multi-threaded tests.

Q: How do the two compare in floating-point math performance?

A: The Intel part leads decisively in PassMark floating-point math with a score of 52,227 versus 35,500 for the AMD, a 47.1% advantage—its largest win in any benchmark category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides the clearest picture of multi-core capability. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel scores 1,999 against the AMD’s 1,562, a 28% lead. This pattern repeats exactly in R20 multi-core (8,332 vs 6,510, +28%) and R23 multi-core (19,840 vs 15,502, +28%). The consistency suggests a structural advantage in core count and thread scheduling rather than a workload-specific quirk. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same direction, with the Intel winning R15 single-core by 28.2% (282 vs 220), R20 by 28.1% (1,176 vs 918), and R23 by 28% (2,801 vs 2,188). This is notable because the AMD chip has a higher boost clock (4.90 GHz vs 4.50 GHz) yet still loses single-core Cinebench, implying the Intel’s Alder Lake architecture extracts more performance per clock in this benchmark.

PassMark tests reveal a more nuanced picture. The Intel wins data compression by 19.1% (253,431 vs 212,739) and data encryption by 18.1% (14,749 vs 12,493), both substantial margins for everyday file handling and security tasks. Integer math goes to Intel by 23.7% (71,714 vs 57,987), while floating-point math shows Intel’s largest win at 47.1% (52,227 vs 35,500)—a massive gap likely tied to its wider vector execution resources. The multi-thread PassMark score favors Intel by 11% (20,625 vs 18,582), and physics simulation is a narrow Intel win at 3.6% (1,018 vs 983). Random string sorting also goes to Intel, 28,099 vs 25,433, a 10.5% margin.

The AMD’s wins are smaller but notable. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,646 beats Intel’s 3,418 by 6.3%, which is the only benchmark where the AMD leads by more than 5%. Extended instructions are only 3.5% faster (15,512 vs 14,965), and find prime numbers shows a 12.3% advantage (65 vs 57), though the absolute scores are low, making that percentage less impactful. The AMD’s wins align with its higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and boost clock (4.90 GHz vs 4.50 GHz), which help in latency-sensitive single-thread workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The Intel Core i5-12500H offers 12 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: the Intel has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and boost of 4.50 GHz, whereas the AMD runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. Thermal design power reflects this: the Intel is rated at 45W TDP, the AMD at 28W, making the AMD substantially more power-efficient on paper.

Memory support differs as well. The Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the AMD lists a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s; the Intel does not specify a bandwidth figure. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Intel provides 20 CPU lanes of Gen 4, while the AMD offers 14 lanes of Gen 4. Socket types are incompatible: Intel uses BGA 1744, AMD uses Socket FP8. The integrated graphics are different too—Intel pairs with Iris Xe 80EU, AMD with Radeon 740M. The AMD has a release date of January 5, 2025, while the Intel lacks a release date in the data. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are active production parts for the mobile segment.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-12500H is built on Alder Lake architecture using a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. Its die size is 217 mm². The AMD Ryzen 5 220 uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 137 mm² and 20,900 million transistors. The Intel part has a larger L1 cache at 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core for AMD, and a larger L2 at 1.25 MB per core versus 1 MB per core. L3 cache is 18 MB shared for Intel versus 16 MB shared for AMD. The Intel’s architecture is older (12th Gen, Alder Lake-H) compared to AMD’s Zen 4, which is a newer microarchitecture.

The process node difference is significant: 10 nm Intel versus 4 nm TSMC. This explains the AMD’s lower TDP of 28W despite higher clock speeds, as the smaller node generally offers better power efficiency. The AMD’s higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz is possible within a lower power envelope due to the 4 nm process. The Intel’s larger die and older node necessitate a 45W TDP to reach 4.50 GHz. The transistor count also highlights the process gap: AMD integrates 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, while Intel does not report a transistor count for its 217 mm² die. The memory controller differences (DDR4/DDR5 for Intel, DDR5-only for AMD) reflect the architectures’ respective design priorities, with AMD betting entirely on newer memory technology. PCIe lane counts favor Intel (20 vs 14), which could matter for high-bandwidth devices like storage or GPUs.