AMD Ryzen 5 3600X vs Intel Core i9-11900H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear picture: the Intel Core i9-11900H wins 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X takes 3. The margin of victory, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part is consistently 8% ahead across all six tests. The multicore results show the i9-11900H scoring 1690 in R15, 7044 in R20, and 16772 in R23, versus the Ryzen 5 3600X's 1555, 6480, and 15430 respectively. Single-core performance follows the same pattern: 238 vs 219 in R15, 994 vs 914 in R20, and 2367 vs 2178 in R23. These are uniform, predictable margins, suggesting a fundamental per-thread advantage for Intel's architecture rather than workload-specific behavior.

The Passmark suite reveals where each chip excels. Intel's i9-11900H dominates in floating-point math with a score of 43094, a 31.9% advantage over the AMD part's 29339. Integer math shows a similar gap: 72882 vs 49934, a 31.5% lead. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, indicating that the Intel processor's execution units handle arithmetic workloads with substantially higher throughput. Extended instructions also favor Intel at 16123 vs 14773, an 8.4% edge, while random string sorting goes to Intel at 28328 vs 24343, a 14.1% gap. Data compression favors Intel too, 239366 vs 224318, a 6.3% difference.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X's wins are concentrated in specific workloads. Data encryption shows a 16.5% advantage for AMD, scoring 14255 versus Intel's 12232. Prime number finding delivers AMD's biggest win at 26.4% ahead, 110 vs 87. Physics simulation also favors AMD at 24.4%, with scores of 1186 and 953. These three victories suggest AMD's architecture handles certain algorithmic patterns more efficiently, particularly those involving modular arithmetic or physics calculations.

The multithreaded Passmark score goes to Intel at 20162 vs 18154, a 10% lead, while single-threaded performance shows Intel ahead by 14.6% with 3102 vs 2649. The overall average benchmark scores reflect this: the Ryzen 5 3600X sits at 21992 while the i9-11900H is at 21367. Interestingly, both processors share the same 75th percentile ranking among all CPUs, meaning they occupy a similar tier despite their different strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X has an average benchmark score of 21992, while the Intel Core i9-11900H scores 21367. The difference is 625 points, about 2.9% in favor of AMD.

Q: How do their Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel i9-11900H scores 16772 against the Ryzen 5 3600X's 15430, an 8% advantage. In single-core R23, Intel leads 2367 to 2178, also an 8% margin.

Q: Where does the AMD processor win decisively?

A: The Ryzen 5 3600X wins in Passmark data encryption (14255 vs 12232, a 16.5% lead), find prime numbers (110 vs 87, a 26.4% lead), and physics simulation (1186 vs 953, a 24.4% lead).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between these two?

A: The largest margin is in Passmark floating-point math, where the Intel i9-11900H leads by 31.9% (43094 vs 29339). Integer math shows a nearly identical gap at 31.5% (72882 vs 49934).

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X and the Intel Core i9-11900H rank in the 75th percentile among all CPUs, despite their different benchmark profiles.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900H has 16 threads from 8 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X has 12 threads from 6 cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X uses the Zen 2 architecture on the Matisse codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 3,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die. The Intel Core i9-11900H uses Tiger Lake-H, an 11th Gen Core design, fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process with a significantly larger 190 mm² die. This size difference reflects the integrated graphics and other on-package elements in the Intel part.

Core configuration differs substantially. The AMD chip offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds show an interesting trade-off: AMD runs at a 3.80 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost, whereas Intel operates at a much lower 2.10 GHz base but boosts to 4.90 GHz. The thermal design power tells the efficiency story: AMD is rated at 95 W, Intel at just 35 W, reflecting the mobile market segment of the i9-11900H.

Cache hierarchies diverge notably. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a shared 32 MB L3. Intel provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and a smaller 24 MB shared L3. The larger L3 on AMD could benefit certain data-intensive workloads, while Intel's larger per-core L2 might improve latency-sensitive tasks.

Memory support appears similar on paper: both use DDR4 with dual-channel buses and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both lack ECC memory support. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 for both, though Intel specifies 20 lanes from the CPU only. The integrated graphics situation differs: Intel includes UHD Graphics 750, while AMD lists no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU.

Production status and platform support separate them further. AMD uses Socket AM4 with an unlocked multiplier, suggesting overclocking flexibility. Intel uses BGA 1787, a soldered mobile socket, with a locked multiplier. The release dates also differ by nearly two years: AMD launched on July 6, 2019, while Intel arrived on May 10, 2021. AMD's part remains active in production, while Intel's is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most workloads: the Intel Core i9-11900H delivers higher raw performance in the majority of tested scenarios. Its 8% lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with 31.9% and 31.5% advantages in floating-point and integer math, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks. The 14.6% single-thread advantage reinforces this, as does the 10% multithread lead in Passmark.

However, the AMD Ryzen 5 3600X claims specific territory where it remains competitive or superior. Data encryption performance is 16.5% better, physics simulation is 24.4% better, and prime number finding is 26.4% better. These are meaningful wins in dedicated workloads, and the higher average benchmark score of 21992 vs 21367 suggests AMD's overall profile is slightly more balanced across the full test suite.

The market segments explain some of the differences. Intel's part is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP and integrated graphics, designed for laptops where power efficiency matters. AMD's desktop chip runs at 95 W with no integrated graphics, assuming a discrete GPU. The average score advantage for AMD, despite losing 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, indicates that its performance is distributed more evenly across varied workloads.

For users whose primary applications involve encryption, physics calculations, or prime number generation, the Ryzen 5 3600X is clearly preferable based on the recorded deltas. For general productivity, content creation, or mathematical workloads, the i9-11900H's consistent leads make it the default recommendation. The two processors occupy the same percentile tier, but their strengths are complementary rather than overlapping.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 3600X | Intel Core i9-11900H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel BGA 1787 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Matisse | Tiger Lake-H |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 190 mm² |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | Not specified |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| PCIe | Gen 4 | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 750 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | July 6, 2019 | May 10, 2021 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-11900H wins in every Cinebench test by 8%, covering both single-core and multicore scenarios. In Passmark, it takes data compression (6.3% ahead), extended instructions (8.4% ahead), floating-point math (31.9% ahead), integer math (31.5% ahead), multithread performance (10% ahead), random string sorting (14.1% ahead), and single-thread performance (14.6% ahead). These wins span rendering, general computation, and arithmetic-heavy workloads, making Intel the stronger all-around performer for most tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3600X claims wins in Passmark data encryption (16.5% ahead), find prime numbers (26.4% ahead), and physics simulation (24.4% ahead). These are specialized workloads where AMD's architecture demonstrates clear superiority. The higher average benchmark score for AMD, 21992 vs 21367, suggests that outside the head-to-head tests, AMD's overall performance profile holds up well across a broader benchmark collection.

The practical implications are clear. Users running physics simulations, encryption workloads, or mathematical prime number calculations should favor the Ryzen 5 3600X based on the recorded data. Users doing general productivity, content creation, or mixed computing where floating-point and integer math dominate will find the i9-11900H delivers meaningfully better results. The Intel part's integrated graphics also makes it suitable for systems without a discrete GPU, while AMD requires a separate graphics card. The choice ultimately depends on which workloads matter most, as neither processor dominates across the entire test suite.