AMD Ryzen 5 2600H vs Intel Core i7-7920HQ Comparison

The Intel Core i7-7920HQ and AMD Ryzen 5 2600H are both 45 W mobile processors with 4 cores and 8 threads, but they come from different design generations and manufacturing approaches. The database records show the AMD part winning every Cinebench head-to-head test, while the Intel part holds a higher average benchmark score across all recorded tests. This analysis compares their architecture, specifications, and measured performance.

The Verdict

For Cinebench workloads, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is the clear winner. It outperforms the Intel Core i7-7920HQ in all six head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 9.4% to 9.7%. The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock (4.10 GHz vs 3.60 GHz) and a larger L3 cache (8 MB vs 4 MB), but these advantages do not translate to Cinebench wins. The Intel part also has a higher average benchmark score (1992 vs 1967) and recorded Geekbench scores (3999 multi, 1267 single), while the AMD part lacks Geekbench data. For users running Cinebench, the AMD is the pick. For those who need the Intel's specific features, such as 16 PCIe lanes and DDR3 support, the Intel remains an option, but it is end-of-life while the AMD is active.

The percentile ranking reinforces the close overall positioning: both processors sit at the 44th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel's average score of 1992 ties it with the AMD Ryzen 5 1500X, while the AMD's 1967 average is nearly matched by the Ryzen 3 2300X at 1968. These nearest-rival comparisons show that the two parts occupy a similar performance tier, even though the head-to-head Cinebench results favor the AMD by a consistent margin.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on a 14 nm process, but Intel uses its own foundry while AMD uses GlobalFoundries. The Intel die measures 126 mm², while the AMD die is 210 mm². AMD's die contains 4,950 million transistors, a figure not recorded for Intel. Despite the larger die and transistor count, both parts are rated at 45 W TDP.

The cache hierarchy differs significantly. Intel provides 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with 8 MB shared L3. AMD provides 96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB shared L3. This means Intel has twice the L3 capacity, while AMD has larger per-core L1 and L2. The larger L3 on the Intel part may benefit certain workloads, but the recorded Cinebench results show the AMD part ahead.

Memory support also diverges: Intel accepts both DDR3 and DDR4, while AMD only supports DDR4. Both use dual-channel memory, but AMD records a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while Intel does not have a recorded bandwidth. PCIe connectivity differs: Intel offers 16 Gen 3 lanes, AMD offers 8. The integrated graphics are different: Intel HD Graphics 630 vs Radeon Vega 8. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1440 vs AMD FP5. The Intel part launched in January 2017 and is end-of-life, while the AMD launched in September 2018 and remains active.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-7920HQ boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H boosts to 3.60 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Intel has 8 MB shared L3, the AMD has 4 MB shared L3.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H scores 6801, compared to the Intel's 6151, a 9.6% lead.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the AMD processor?

A: The AMD records 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel does not have a recorded memory bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, both have multiplierUnlocked set to false.

Q: What is the production status of each?

A: The Intel is end-of-life, the AMD is active.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i7-7920HQ | AMD Ryzen 5 2600H |

|-------|----------------------|-------------------|

| Base clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Zen |

| Codename | Kaby Lake-H | Raven Ridge |

| Generation | Core i7 (Kaby Lake-H) | Ryzen 5 (Zen (Raven Ridge)) |

| Foundry | Intel | GlobalFoundries |

| Die size | 126 mm² | 210 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 4,950 million |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 256 KB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 8 MB shared | 4 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel HD Graphics 630 | Radeon Vega 8 |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | 2017-01-02 | 2018-09-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $568 | Not recorded |

| Part number | SR32L | YM2600C3T4MFB |

The two processors share several specifications: both have 4 cores, 8 threads, a 45 W TDP, a 14 nm process node, dual-channel memory, no ECC support, a locked multiplier, and a mobile market segment. The differences above highlight where the designs diverge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison covers six Cinebench tests, and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 685 against the Intel's 619, a 9.6% advantage. In R15 single-core, the AMD scores 96 against 87, a 9.4% lead. Moving to R20, the AMD leads 2856 to 2583 in multi-core (9.6%) and 403 to 364 in single-core (9.7%). In R23, the AMD scores 6801 to 6151 in multi-core (9.6%) and 960 to 868 in single-core (9.6%). The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering around 9.5% across all tests. This suggests a uniform performance advantage for the AMD part in Cinebench workloads.

The Intel part does have recorded Geekbench scores (3999 multi, 1267 single), but no head-to-head Geekbench comparison is available in the database, so the Cinebench results are the only direct measure. The consistency of the AMD's lead, from the older R15 to the newer R23, indicates that the performance gap is not tied to a specific benchmark version. For any user relying on Cinebench as a proxy for rendering or multi-threaded productivity, the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is the stronger choice based on the recorded data.