AMD Ryzen 5 2600H vs Intel Core i7-3930K Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H and the Intel Core i7-3930K occupy the same overall performance tier, with average benchmark scores of 1967 and 1960, respectively. Both processors sit at the 44th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that despite their vastly different origins and architectures, they deliver statistically equivalent performance in aggregate. The Ryzen 5 2600H is a 2018 mobile processor built on a 14 nm Zen architecture, while the i7-3930K is a 2011 desktop processor built on a 32 nm Sandy Bridge-E architecture. The data shows a consistent pattern across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests: the Intel chip wins every single benchmark, albeit by narrow margins ranging from 2.0% to 2.3%. However, the Ryzen chip offers a modern feature set, integrated graphics, and a 45 W TDP compared to the Intel part’s 130 W TDP, making the choice between them a matter of platform priorities rather than raw performance dominance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-3930K wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, from single-core to multi-core workloads. The largest margin is a 2.3% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, while the smallest is a 2.0% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Ryzen 5 2600H never takes a single win across the six recorded benchmarks. If the sole criterion is raw CPU throughput in rendering workloads, the data clearly favors the Intel part.

However, the choice is more nuanced when considering the complete specifications. The Ryzen 5 2600H includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the i7-3930K has no integrated graphics at all. The Ryzen part is an active production mobile chip with a 45 W TDP, whereas the i7-3930K is an end-of-life desktop chip with a 130 W TDP. For a system builder prioritizing power efficiency, a modern socket (AMD Socket FP5 vs Intel Socket 2011), and integrated graphics, the Ryzen 5 2600H is the logical pick. For a desktop user who already has a discrete GPU and values the slight multi-core edge—plus the unlocked multiplier for overclocking—the i7-3930K is the data-backed choice for raw compute.

The average benchmark scores confirm this near-parity: the Ryzen 5 2600H averages 1967, while the i7-3930K averages 1960, a difference of just 0.3%. The nearest rivals list reinforces this, with the Ryzen 5 2600H sitting between the Intel Xeon D-2712T (1964, +0.2%) and the Intel Core i7-10810U (1971, -0.2%). The i7-3930K sits between the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE (1954, +0.3%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H (1967, -0.3%). Both chips are effectively interchangeable in aggregate performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-3930K wins in every benchmark category recorded. In multi-core workloads, it leads by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 (701 vs 685), 2.2% in Cinebench R20 (2921 vs 2856), and 2.2% in Cinebench R23 (6955 vs 6801). In single-core workloads, it leads by 2.0% in Cinebench R15 (98 vs 96), 2.2% in Cinebench R20 (412 vs 403), and 2.1% in Cinebench R23 (981 vs 960). The data shows no scenario where the Ryzen 5 2600H outperforms the i7-3930K in any of the six head-to-head tests.

The Ryzen 5 2600H wins in platform-level attributes rather than benchmark scores. It has a significantly lower TDP of 45 W versus 130 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light mobile systems. It integrates Radeon Vega 8 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. It supports DDR4 memory, whereas the i7-3930K uses DDR3. The Ryzen part is also smaller in die size (210 mm² vs 435 mm²) and uses a more advanced 14 nm process node compared to the Intel part’s 32 nm node. These are qualitative wins in efficiency and feature integration, not raw speed.

The i7-3930K wins in platform flexibility for desktop builders. It has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) versus the Ryzen’s 8 lanes, enabling more expansion cards. It supports quad-channel memory versus dual-channel, although both achieve the same theoretical memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Ryzen part is locked. For a user with a discrete GPU and a desire for multi-GPU or high-bandwidth storage configurations, the i7-3930K is the data-supported choice.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 210 mm² and 4,950 million transistors. It uses the Zen architecture under the Raven Ridge codename, featuring 4 cores and 8 threads. The cache hierarchy includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. It supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and its PCIe configuration is Gen 3 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The chip includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics and is socketed for AMD Socket FP5.

The Intel Core i7-3930K is built on a 32 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 435 mm² and 2,270 million transistors. It uses the Sandy Bridge architecture under the Sandy Bridge-E codename, featuring 6 cores and 12 threads. The cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a substantial 12 MB of shared L3. It supports quad-channel DDR3 memory with the same theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and its PCIe configuration is Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The chip has no integrated graphics and is socketed for Intel Socket 2011.

The core count difference is notable: the i7-3930K offers 6 cores and 12 threads versus the Ryzen’s 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite this 50% core advantage, the i7-3930K only manages a 2.2-2.3% lead in multi-core benchmarks, suggesting the Ryzen’s newer Zen architecture delivers higher instructions per clock. The i7-3930K’s base clock is 3.20 GHz, identical to the Ryzen’s, but its boost clock is higher at 3.80 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. The i7-3930K also has a larger L3 cache (12 MB vs 4 MB), which may contribute to its slight edge in single-core tests.

Process technology differences are stark: 14 nm versus 32 nm. This explains the transistor density disparity—the Ryzen packs 4,950 million transistors into 210 mm², while the Intel part fits only 2,270 million into 435 mm². The newer process also contributes to the Ryzen’s dramatically lower TDP of 45 W versus 130 W. The production status reflects this: the Ryzen 5 2600H is active, while the i7-3930K is end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-3930K scores 6955, which is 2.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H’s score of 6801.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i7-3930K supports DDR3 memory. Both use different bus configurations: dual-channel for the Ryzen and quad-channel for the Intel part.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics. The Intel Core i7-3930K has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H has a TDP of 45 W, while the Intel Core i7-3930K has a TDP of 130 W. The Ryzen part consumes significantly less power.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H and the Intel Core i7-3930K are in the 44th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are 1967 and 1960, respectively.

Q: Can the Intel Core i7-3930K be overclocked?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-3930K has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-3930K across all six Cinebench tests. The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i7-3930K scores 701 against the Ryzen’s 685, a 2.3% advantage. This test is notable because it pits the Intel’s 6 cores and 12 threads against the AMD’s 4 cores and 8 threads, yet the margin is slim, indicating the Zen architecture’s efficiency per core. The smallest delta is in Cinebench R15 single-core, at 2.0%, with scores of 98 and 96.

In Cinebench R20, the i7-3930K extends its lead to 2.2% in both multi-core (2921 vs 2856) and single-core (412 vs 403). The consistency of this 2.2% margin across both R20 tests suggests a uniform architectural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core gap narrows slightly to 2.2% (6955 vs 6801), while the single-core gap is 2.1% (981 vs 960). These margins are remarkably stable, ranging from 2.0% to 2.3% across all tests.

The Ryzen 5 2600H’s closest performance parity is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the 2.0% gap is the smallest of any benchmark. The i7-3930K’s highest boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.60 GHz likely contributes to this edge, though the Ryzen’s newer architecture mitigates the difference. In multi-core tests, the Intel part’s extra two cores and four threads provide a measurable, if modest, advantage. The data does not show any test where the Ryzen 5 2600H comes within 2% of the i7-3930K, let alone surpasses it.

Average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head results. The Ryzen 5 2600H averages 1967, which is 0.3% higher than the i7-3930K’s 1960. This discrepancy arises because the average includes the Geekbench tests, which are only recorded for the Intel part (2991 multi-core, 617 single-core) and not for the AMD part. When restricted to the shared Cinebench suite, the Intel part consistently leads. The nearest rivals data places both chips in the same performance band, with the Ryzen 5 2600H’s closest rival being the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X (1968, -0.1%) and the i7-3930K’s closest rival being the Intel Xeon D-2712T (1964, -0.2%). The two processors are themselves listed as rivals, with the Ryzen 5 2600H showing a 0.3% advantage over the i7-3930K in average score. This confirms that the i7-3930K’s Cinebench wins are narrow and do not translate to overall benchmark superiority.