AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins all 15 recorded head-to-head tests, with the AMD Ryzen 5 40 trailing by substantial margins in every category. The smallest gap appears in single-threaded workloads, while the largest deficits show up in prime number calculation and physics simulations.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 18,911 against 4,841 for the AMD chip, a 74.4% deficit for the Ryzen 5 40. The single-core R23 result is closer but still lopsided: 2,200.5 versus 1,150, a 47.7% gap. Cinebench R15 tells a similar story, with the Intel processor posting 2,955 multi-core and 309.5 single-core, while the AMD chip manages 790 and 165.5 respectively, deficits of 73.3% and 46.5%.

PassMark integer math shows the Intel part at 90,882 versus 31,598 for the AMD chip, a 65.2% difference. Floating point math is even more one-sided: 112,550 versus 15,194, an 86.5% deficit. The extended instructions test shows 29,943 versus 6,437, a 78.5% gap. Data encryption favors Intel at 28,490 versus 6,646, a 76.7% shortfall. Data compression shows 361,763 against 141,533, a 60.9% difference.

The widest margin appears in the find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 358 versus 20 for AMD, a 94.4% deficit. Physics simulation shows 3,226 versus 432, an 86.6% gap. Random string sorting delivers 44,010 versus 15,124, a 65.6% difference. The PassMark multi-thread score of 36,811 versus 9,341 represents a 74.6% deficit, while single-thread scores of 4,280 versus 2,477 show a 42.1% gap, the narrowest margin recorded.

The average benchmark score places the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H at 44,466, compared to 15,882 for the AMD Ryzen 5 40. This places the Intel part in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD chip sits in the 70th percentile. The Intel processor's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.2% higher), Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.3% lower), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (0.4% lower), and Intel Core i5-13600 (0.5% lower). The AMD Ryzen 5 40's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 75F3 (0.1% higher), Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (0.2% lower), AMD EPYC 9354P (0.4% higher), and AMD EPYC 9334 (0.4% lower).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare between these two mobile chips?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel part uses one thread per core, whereas the AMD chip uses two threads per core.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 4 MB of shared L3 cache on the AMD Ryzen 5 40.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth at 153.6 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s for the AMD chip.

Q: Which processor has a higher PassMark single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 4,280 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 scores 2,477. This gives the Intel part a 42.1% advantage in this metric.

Q: How does the TDP differ between these two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a 25 W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 has a 15 W TDP. The AMD chip consumes less power by specification, though the Intel part delivers substantially higher performance in every recorded benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. This includes all Cinebench R15 and R23 tests, all PassMark tests covering integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, data encryption, data compression, prime number finding, physics simulation, random string sorting, multithread performance, and single-thread performance. The margin of victory ranges from 42.1% in single-thread tests to 94.4% in prime number finding.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has no recorded benchmark wins against the Intel part. However, its lower 15 W TDP compared to 25 W for the Intel chip indicates a more power-efficient design on paper. The AMD processor also uses a smaller process node at 6 nm from TSMC, while Intel uses its own 3 nm process. These differences do not translate into performance advantages in the recorded data, but they may affect thermal behavior and battery life in portable devices, factors not captured by the benchmark scores.

For workloads that rely heavily on single-core performance, the Intel part's 42.1% advantage in PassMark single-thread and 47.7% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core shows it handles lightly threaded tasks with notably more headroom. For heavily threaded workloads, the gap widens dramatically: Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 74.4% deficit for AMD, and PassMark multithread shows a 74.6% deficit. The Intel processor's 16 physical cores provide a clear advantage in parallel workloads, while the AMD chip's 4 cores with 8 threads cannot compete despite its simultaneous multithreading.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds also differ: the AMD chip has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel chip boosts higher despite a lower base clock.

The TDP values differ by 10 W, with AMD at 15 W and Intel at 25 W. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the AMD part uses AMD Socket FT6, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes differ, with AMD using 6 nm from TSMC and Intel using 3 nm from its own foundry. The die size is listed as 100 mm² for the AMD chip, while no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD chip supports LPDDR5, while the Intel chip supports LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 88.0 GB/s for AMD and 153.6 GB/s for Intel. PCIe support shows the AMD part using Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD chip uses Radeon 610M, while the Intel chip uses Arc B390. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, representing the Ryzen 5 generation built on Zen 2. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture under the Panther Lake codename, representing the Ultra X9 generation built on Panther Lake-H. These are fundamentally different design generations, with Intel's part being a newer architecture built on a more advanced 3 nm process compared to AMD's 6 nm process.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has significantly more cache at every level, which contributes to its performance advantage in memory-intensive workloads.

The Intel part uses an 8-core design with 16 threads, indicating a homogeneous core layout with no hyperthreading. The AMD part uses a 4-core design with 8 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading is enabled. The Intel processor's part number is recorded as SA4QWQ9EK, while the AMD part number is listed as unknown. The Intel chip belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 product family, while the AMD chip has no series designation in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H across every benchmark in the database. Its average benchmark score of 44,466 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40's average score of 15,882 places it in the 70th percentile. The Intel part outperforms the AMD chip by margins ranging from 42.1% in single-thread workloads to 94.4% in prime number calculation.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the appropriate choice for users who need maximum performance in CPU-bound tasks, whether single-threaded applications or heavily parallel workloads. Its 16 physical cores, 18 MB L3 cache, and 5.10 GHz boost clock deliver results that place it in the same performance class as processors like the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, Intel Core i9-13950HX, AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and Intel Core i5-13600, all of which are within 0.5% of its average score.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 operates in a different performance tier, comparable to server-class EPYC processors like the AMD EPYC 75F3, AMD EPYC 9354P, and AMD EPYC 9334, as well as the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U. Its 15 W TDP and 6 nm process from TSMC indicate a design focused on efficiency rather than peak performance. The AMD chip delivers no benchmark wins against the Intel part, so users prioritizing raw compute power should select the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H based on the recorded data.