AMD Ryzen 5 220 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 and Intel Core Ultra X9 388H occupy different tiers of the mobile processor market, and the benchmark data reflects a decisive performance gap. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, with the largest margins appearing in multi-threaded and floating-point workloads. The Ryzen 5 220, while competitive in single-core tasks, falls significantly behind in almost every measurable category, making the Intel part the clear choice for users prioritizing raw performance across a broad spectrum of applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel processor leads by 47.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 50.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, and 18% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. In PassMark multithread, the Intel part scores 36,811 compared to 18,582 for the AMD chip, a 49.5% advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Intel part also has a lower base clock at 2.10 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the AMD chip.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 220 uses the Radeon 740M, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Arc B390.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, which is 71.4% higher than the 89.6 GB/s of the AMD Ryzen 5 220.

Q: Which processor achieves a higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all single-thread tests. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4,280 versus 3,646 for AMD, a 14.8% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the margin is much smaller at 0.6% (2,200.5 versus 2,188).

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this gap: the AMD chip packs 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, while the Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache structures differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part offers larger per-core caches at every level, which contributes to its superior single-thread performance.

The core configurations are also distinct. The AMD chip uses 6 cores with simultaneous multithreading, giving it 12 threads. The Intel part uses 16 cores with no hyper-threading, yielding 16 threads. This explains the large multi-threaded performance gap: the Intel processor has more than double the physical cores, and while the AMD chip has thread count parity with its core count plus 6 extra threads, the raw core advantage of the Intel part dominates.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, achieving 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, achieving 153.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD chip offers Gen 4 with 14 lanes, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes, favoring the AMD chip for expansion options but the Intel chip for raw lane speed.

The production status is active for both, but the release dates are a year apart. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 was released on 2025-01-05, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H was released on 2026-01-04. Both use different sockets: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel BGA 2540. The AMD chip has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel chip has a TDP of 25 watts, a small difference that favors the Intel part in power-constrained designs.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H winning every recorded test, so there is no category where the AMD Ryzen 5 220 takes a head-to-head win. However, the margins vary significantly by workload, which indicates where each processor has relative strengths.

The Intel part is overwhelmingly dominant in multi-threaded and parallel workloads. The largest wins are in PassMark find prime numbers (81.8% ahead), PassMark physics (69.5% ahead), and PassMark floating-point math (68.5% ahead). These tasks scale with core count and raw compute throughput, where the Intel processor's 16 cores vastly outperform the AMD chip's 6 cores. The data encryption test shows a 56.1% lead for Intel, and the data compression test shows a 41.2% lead.

The Intel part also wins single-threaded tests, but by smaller margins. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows only a 0.6% difference, indicating that the AMD Ryzen 5 220 is nearly on par in lightly threaded workloads. The PassMark single-thread test shows a 14.8% lead for Intel, and the Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 28.9% lead. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows a 50.4% lead, which is an outlier compared to the other single-thread results.

For users focused on Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part delivers 18% more performance. For users running Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Intel part delivers 50.3% more performance. The AMD chip's best relative showing is in single-core R23, where it trails by less than 1%. This means the AMD processor is more viable for single-threaded applications, while the Intel processor is the clear pick for any workload that can use multiple cores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clocks are 3.20 GHz for AMD and 2.10 GHz for Intel, while the boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for AMD and 5.10 GHz for Intel. The TDP is 28 watts for AMD and 25 watts for Intel.

The sockets differ: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel BGA 2540. The architectures are Zen 4 (Hawk Point) for AMD and Panther Lake for Intel. The process nodes are 4 nm (TSMC) for AMD and 3 nm (Intel) for Intel. The cache hierarchies are different at every level, with the Intel part having larger L1 (192 KB per core versus 64 KB), L2 (3 MB per core versus 1 MB), and L3 (18 MB shared versus 16 MB shared).

Memory support differs: DDR5 for AMD and LPDDR5X for Intel. The memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD and 153.6 GB/s for Intel. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The PCIe support is Gen 4 with 14 lanes for AMD and Gen 5 with 4 lanes for Intel. The integrated graphics are Radeon 740M for AMD and Arc B390 for Intel.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The release dates are 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2026-01-04 for Intel. The part numbers are 100-000001611 for AMD and SA4QWQ9EK for Intel. The Intel processor is part of the Core Ultra Series 3, while the AMD processor has no series designation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 17. The most decisive victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, where Intel scores 358 against AMD's 65, a delta of 81.8%. This test heavily favors the Intel processor's core count and integer throughput.

The PassMark floating-point math test shows Intel at 112,550 versus AMD at 35,500, a 68.5% lead. The PassMark physics test shows Intel at 3,226 versus AMD at 983, a 69.5% lead. These results indicate that the Intel processor excels in computational tasks that rely on parallel execution.

The Cinebench multi-core tests show a consistent pattern. In R15, Intel scores 2,955 versus AMD's 1,562, a 47.1% lead. In R20, Intel scores 13,101 versus AMD's 6,510, a 50.3% lead. In R23, Intel scores 18,911 versus AMD's 15,502, an 18% lead. The smaller R23 margin suggests that the AMD processor scales better with the longer R23 workload, but the Intel part still maintains a significant advantage.

The single-core tests show a narrower gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 2,200.5 versus AMD's 2,188, a 0.6% lead. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4,280 versus AMD's 3,646, a 14.8% lead. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows Intel at 309.5 versus AMD's 220, a 28.9% lead, and the R20 single-core test shows Intel at 1,849 versus AMD's 918, a 50.4% lead.

The data encryption test shows Intel at 28,490 versus AMD's 12,493, a 56.1% lead. The data compression test shows Intel at 361,763 versus AMD's 212,739, a 41.2% lead. The extended instructions test shows Intel at 29,943 versus AMD's 15,512, a 48.2% lead. The integer math test shows Intel at 90,882 versus AMD's 57,987, a 36.2% lead. The random string sorting test shows Intel at 44,010 versus AMD's 25,433, a 42.2% lead. The multithread test shows Intel at 36,811 versus AMD's 18,582, a 49.5% lead.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear winner: the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior processor in every benchmark recorded. The Intel part's 16 cores deliver a massive advantage in multi-threaded workloads, with leads ranging from 18% in Cinebench R23 multi-core to 81.8% in PassMark find prime numbers. The Intel processor also wins all single-thread tests, though the margin in Cinebench R23 single-core is only 0.6%, indicating near parity in that specific workload.

For users who prioritize multi-core performance, video rendering, data compression, or any parallel compute task, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the obvious choice based on the benchmark results. The Intel part also offers higher memory bandwidth (153.6 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) and a larger L3 cache (18 MB versus 16 MB), which contribute to its overall performance profile.

The AMD Ryzen 5 220 is not without merit. Its lower TDP of 28 watts versus 25 watts for Intel is actually higher, but its 6-core design with 12 threads may be sufficient for lighter workloads. The AMD chip's best relative performance is in single-core Cinebench R23, where it trails by less than 1%. For users who rarely run multi-threaded applications, the AMD processor could be a viable option, but the data shows it falls behind in every measured test.

The percentile rankings reinforce this conclusion. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD Ryzen 5 220 sits in the 75th percentile. The average benchmark score for Intel is 44,466, compared to 22,289 for AMD, a difference of roughly 99.4% in favor of Intel. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the Intel Core i7-10700K (0.3% ahead), Intel Core i5-13500H (0.8% behind), and Intel Core i7-1270P (0.9% behind). The nearest rivals for the Intel chip include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% behind), and AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% behind).

The verdict is straightforward: for any workload that can utilize more than a few cores, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H delivers substantially more performance. For single-threaded tasks, the two processors are closer, but the Intel part still holds the advantage in all recorded tests. The AMD Ryzen 5 220 is a competent mid-range mobile processor, but the data positions the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H as the higher-performing part across the board.