AMD Ryzen 5 2600H vs Intel Core i7-9850HL Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H and Intel Core i7-9850HL in the same performance tier, with both CPUs sitting at the 44th percentile among all processors in the database. The AMD part wins every single head-to-head benchmark in Cinebench, but the margins are uniformly narrow. Across all six recorded tests, the Ryzen 5 2600H leads by margins between 1.1% and 1.5%. The average benchmark score for the AMD chip is 1967, while the Intel chip scores 1941, a difference of roughly 1.3%. For a buyer choosing between these two mobile processors, the decision should hinge on factors other than raw Cinebench performance, because the benchmark results show near parity. The Ryzen 5 2600H edges ahead in every measured workload, but the Intel Core i7-9850HL offers two additional cores and twelve threads versus eight, which may matter in applications not captured by these specific Cinebench runs. The Intel part also carries a significantly lower thermal design power of 25 watts against the AMD chip’s 45 watts, a specification difference that could influence system design and sustained performance in thin laptops. The data suggests that users who prioritize the absolute highest Cinebench scores should select the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H, while those who need a cooler-running processor with more cores for multithreaded tasks outside Cinebench may prefer the Intel Core i7-9850HL, despite its slight deficit in these particular tests.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H scores 6801 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i7-9850HL scores 6712 points. The AMD chip leads by 1.3% in this test.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H wins all three single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 96 versus 95 for Intel, a 1.1% lead. In R20, AMD scores 403 versus 397, a 1.5% lead. In R23, AMD scores 960 versus 947, a 1.4% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i7-9850HL has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel chip offers 50% more cores and threads on paper.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-9850HL has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H boosts to 3.60 GHz. The Intel chip’s boost clock is higher by 0.50 GHz.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H has a thermal design power of 45 watts, while the Intel Core i7-9850HL is rated at 25 watts. The Intel chip consumes 20 watts less, which may affect cooling requirements and battery life in mobile systems.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is listed as active in production, while the Intel Core i7-9850HL is marked as end-of-life. This may impact long-term availability and platform support.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H is built on the Zen architecture with the Raven Ridge codename, representing the first generation of AMD’s Zen mobile processors. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 210 mm² and 4,950 million transistors. The Intel Core i7-9850HL, by contrast, uses the Coffee Lake architecture with the Coffee Lake-HR codename, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Intel. Intel’s die size is smaller at 149 mm², and the database records no transistor count for this part. The cache structures differ substantially between the two designs. AMD allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip’s larger L3 cache, more than double that of the AMD part, may help in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. The AMD processor integrates Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 630. Both are mobile processors, but they use different sockets: AMD uses Socket FP5, and Intel uses BGA 1440. The AMD chip supports PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while Intel lists PCIe Gen 3 without specifying lane count in the database. Memory bandwidth differs as well, with AMD rated at 51.2 GB/s and Intel at 42.7 GB/s, despite both supporting DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, preventing user overclocking. The Intel part carries the part number SRFEH, while AMD uses YM2600C3T4MFB.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications recorded in the database. Core count is the most obvious difference: AMD offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while Intel offers 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds differ drastically, with AMD running at 3.20 GHz and Intel at 1.90 GHz, a 1.30 GHz advantage for AMD at the base frequency. Boost clocks tell a different story, with Intel reaching 4.10 GHz versus AMD’s 3.60 GHz, giving Intel a 0.50 GHz boost advantage. Thermal design power favors Intel at 25 watts against AMD’s 45 watts, a 20-watt gap that could be significant for thin-and-light laptop designs. The process nodes are identical at 14 nm, but the foundries differ: GlobalFoundries for AMD and Intel for its own chips. Die sizes are 210 mm² for AMD and 149 mm² for Intel, a 61 mm² difference. Transistor counts are only recorded for AMD at 4,950 million, with no figure available for Intel. Cache hierarchies differ as noted above, with Intel’s 9 MB shared L3 cache dwarfing AMD’s 4 MB. Memory bandwidth is higher on the AMD side at 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. The integrated graphics differ: Radeon Vega 8 on AMD versus UHD Graphics 630 on Intel. Production status differs, with AMD active and Intel end-of-life. The release date is recorded for AMD as September 9, 2018, while no release date appears for Intel. The AMD part has a base clock expressed in GHz, while Intel’s base clock is recorded as 1900.00 MHz, though the database treats these as comparable figures. Both use dual-channel DDR4 memory and lack ECC support. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported on either platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen 5 2600H across all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are consistently small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 685 against Intel’s 676, a 1.3% lead. The single-core R15 test shows AMD at 96 versus 95, a 1.1% edge. Moving to Cinebench R20, AMD leads multi-core with 2856 points versus 2819, again a 1.3% difference. The R20 single-core test shows AMD at 403 and Intel at 397, the largest relative margin at 1.5%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 6801 against 6712, a 1.3% lead. The R23 single-core test shows AMD at 960 and Intel at 947, a 1.4% difference. The pattern is remarkably consistent: AMD wins every test by roughly 1% to 1.5%, never more. This suggests that the Ryzen 5 2600H has a slight architectural efficiency advantage in Cinebench workloads, despite having fewer cores and a lower boost clock. The Intel chip’s 6-core, 12-thread configuration should theoretically excel in multi-threaded rendering, yet it trails the 4-core AMD part in every multi-core test. The base clock difference may explain part of this: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz base versus Intel’s 1.90 GHz, and if sustained all-core workloads keep the chips near their base clocks due to thermal or power limits, AMD’s higher base frequency would provide an advantage. Intel’s 25-watt thermal design power may constrain sustained boost behavior, preventing the chip from reaching its 4.10 GHz boost across all six cores for extended periods. The AMD chip, despite its higher 45-watt TDP, may hold closer to its boost clock under load. The average benchmark scores reflect the same story: AMD averages 1967 across all tests, while Intel averages 1941, a 26-point gap. The nearest rivals for each chip confirm their similar positioning. AMD’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X at 1968, just one point higher, and the Intel Core i7-10810U at 1971. Intel’s closest rival is the Intel Core i7-7820HQ at 1940, essentially tied, and the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 at 1945. Both processors sit in a crowded mid-range segment where single-digit point differences separate dozens of chips.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H wins every recorded benchmark, so the data is unambiguous about which chip posts higher Cinebench scores. However, the narrow margins mean the practical significance of these wins is limited. AMD’s largest advantage, 1.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core, would be imperceptible in real-world use. The Ryzen 5 2600H’s wins likely stem from its higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and its higher memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, both of which may contribute to better sustained performance in short render tasks. The AMD chip also has an active production status, meaning it remains available for new designs, whereas the Intel part is end-of-life. For a system builder looking at long-term supply, the AMD processor has an advantage in availability. The Intel Core i7-9850HL, despite losing all benchmarks, has structural advantages that the Cinebench results do not capture. With 6 cores and 12 threads, the Intel chip offers 50% more parallelism than the AMD part, which could translate to better performance in heavily threaded applications that are not well-represented by Cinebench’s rendering workload. The Intel chip’s 9 MB of L3 cache, more than double the AMD chip’s 4 MB, may benefit database workloads, virtualization, or other cache-sensitive tasks. The Intel part’s 25-watt thermal design power is a significant advantage for mobile designs: it generates less heat, requires smaller cooling solutions, and may enable fanless or passively cooled laptops that the 45-watt AMD chip cannot use. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz could provide snappier single-threaded response in bursty workloads, even if Cinebench single-core tests show AMD winning by a small margin. For users who prioritize battery life and low heat output in a slim laptop, the Intel Core i7-9850HL’s lower power draw is a clear win, despite its benchmark deficit. The AMD Ryzen 5 2600H, with its higher TDP and active production status, suits systems where sustained performance matters more than power efficiency, such as gaming laptops or mobile workstations with robust cooling. The data shows that the AMD chip is the better Cinebench performer, but the Intel chip offers a different trade-off: more cores, more cache, lower power, and a higher boost clock, all of which may be more valuable in certain workloads. The choice between these two comes down to whether the user values the marginal Cinebench advantage of the AMD part or the structural advantages of the Intel part in core count, power consumption, and cache capacity. The benchmark database records six wins for AMD and zero for Intel, but the specification sheet tells a more nuanced story.