AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235H Comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 3501U and Intel Core Ultra 5 235H represent two distinct generations of mobile processors, with the database showing a decisive performance gap between them. The Ryzen 5 3501U, built on the older Picasso architecture, posts an average benchmark score of 14,320, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 5 235H, using Arrow Lake-H architecture, achieves an average score of 37,522, sitting in the 85th percentile. This places the Intel part in league with desktop-class chips like the Intel Core i5-13600K, which trails it by only 0.4%, and ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 by 0.6%. The Ryzen 5 3501U, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core 7 160UL (0.6% behind).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison contains eleven PassMark tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins all eleven. The smallest margin appears in single-threaded workloads, where the Intel part scores 4,359 against the AMD's 2,136, a 51% advantage. This is the only test where the gap is below 60%, and it still represents a substantial lead in per-core efficiency. In multithreaded workloads, the spread widens dramatically: the Intel chip scores 30,091 versus 7,071, a 76.5% difference. The data indicates the Core Ultra 5 235H is not merely faster but operates in a different performance class.

The largest deltas appear in mathematically intensive tasks. In find prime numbers, the Intel part scores 239 against 21, a 91.2% advantage. Floating point math shows a similar pattern, with the Intel chip at 93,509 versus 12,707, an 86.4% lead. Extended instructions, a measure of SIMD and cryptographic workloads, sees the Intel part score 23,354 against 3,274, an 86% gap. Data encryption results show 23,121 versus 5,580, a 75.9% difference. Physics simulations, often a proxy for gaming and physics engine work, show 1,985 versus 483, a 75.7% lead. Integer math follows at 74,247 versus 26,321, a 64.5% advantage.

Two tests round out the suite with similar margins. Random string sorting shows the Intel part at 36,208 versus 10,414, a 71.2% lead, and data compression shows 301,979 versus 87,380, a 71.1% gap. Across all workload types, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H delivers between roughly 2x and 11x the raw performance of the Ryzen 5 3501U. The consistency of these margins, spanning memory-bound, compute-bound, and latency-sensitive tasks, points to fundamental architectural advantages rather than a single strong suite.

Where Each One Wins

Given the sweep, the use-case split is straightforward: the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins every measured category. There is no benchmark in the database where the Ryzen 5 3501U records a higher score. The closest relative performance appears in single-threaded tasks, where the Intel chip leads by 51%. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications, the AMD part is at least competitive in proportional terms, though still trailing by a wide absolute margin. For multi-threaded rendering, scientific computation, or data processing, the Intel chip's advantages in floating point, integer math, and compression become decisive.

The Ryzen 5 3501U does hold a niche in power efficiency. Its 15W TDP is nearly half the Intel part's 28W TDP. The database does not include battery life or sustained performance tests, but the thermal envelope difference is recorded. For passive-cooled designs or fanless ultraportables, the Ryzen part's lower power draw is a qualifying factor. The Intel chip, with its higher TDP, requires more substantial cooling but returns significantly higher throughput per unit of time. The data shows the Intel part excels in every performance test, while the AMD part's advantage lies solely in power consumption.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and process generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U uses the Picasso codename, based on the Zen+ architecture, fabricated on a 12nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H uses Arrow Lake-H architecture, built on a 3nm process at TSMC, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. The process node difference alone, 12nm versus 3nm, accounts for substantial efficiency and density gains.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD part has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part has 14 cores and 14 threads, also without SMT but with a mix of performance and efficiency cores typical of Intel's hybrid designs. Cache hierarchies reflect this. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 4 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel L3 cache is 4.5x larger, which directly benefits workloads with high data reuse.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part uses DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, providing 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel, yielding 102.4 GB/s, which is 2.67x the AMD's bandwidth. PCIe connectivity sees the AMD part on Gen 3, while the Intel part runs Gen 5 with 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD uses Radeon Vega 8, while the Intel uses Arc Graphics 140T. Neither graphics solution has independent benchmarks in the database, so comparisons are limited to architectural specifications. The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, and a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H records an average benchmark score of 37,522, compared to 14,320 for the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U. This places the Intel part in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part sits in the 69th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in single-threaded tasks?

A: In the PassMark single-thread test, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H scores 4,359 against the AMD's 2,136. This represents a 51% advantage for the Intel chip, which is the smallest margin across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has a TDP of 15W, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has a TDP of 28W. The AMD part draws less power, but the database shows no performance test where it wins.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel part's bandwidth is 2.67x higher.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 14 cores and 14 threads. Neither processor implements simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, making the Intel part's cache 4.5x larger.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235H wins all 11 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 51% in single-threaded work to 91.2% in prime number finding. Its average score of 37,522 is 2.62x the AMD's 14,320. The Intel part sits in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, competing with desktop processors like the Intel Core i5-13600K (0.4% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435 (0.6% behind). The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U, in the 69th percentile, sits near the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 and the Intel Core 7 160UL.

For any workload measured in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H is the correct choice. It delivers superior single-thread performance, vastly better multi-thread throughput, and higher memory bandwidth. The only recorded advantage for the AMD part is its 15W TDP versus 28W for the Intel chip. This matters for systems where power draw is the primary constraint, such as low-power embedded designs or fanless laptops. In such cases, the Ryzen 5 3501U offers a functional baseline, though the performance cost is severe: roughly half the single-thread score and about a quarter of the multi-thread score.

The architectural differences explain the gap. The 12nm Picasso design with 4 cores and 4 threads cannot compete with the 3nm Arrow Lake-H part with 14 cores and 14 threads. The Intel part's 18 MB of L3 cache, 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 support position it for modern workloads. The AMD part's DDR4 support and PCIe Gen 3 limit its ability to feed data to the cores. The data shows a generational leap, not a close contest. Users requiring any measure of compute performance should select the Intel Core Ultra 5 235H. Users prioritizing minimal power draw above all other factors may consider the Ryzen 5 3501U, but they should expect the lowest scores in the database for its class.