AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS vs Intel Core i7-11375H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has a higher average benchmark score of 3122, compared to the Intel Core i7-11375H's average of 3018. The difference is about 3.4% in favor of the AMD part.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-11375H wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 9775, beating the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS's 9131. That is a 7.1% advantage for Intel in this specific workload.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-11375H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS boosts to 4.50 GHz. Intel holds a 0.50 GHz advantage in maximum turbo frequency.

Q: Where does each processor sit in the overall CPU performance distribution?

A: Both processors are in the 52nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. They are effectively tied in overall standing, despite the AMD chip's slightly higher average benchmark score.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each chip according to the database?

A: The Intel Core i7-11375H is closest to the AMD Ryzen 5 5600U, which scores 3053 with a delta of -1.1%. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS is closest to the AMD Ryzen 3 5425U, which scores 3124 with a delta of -0.1%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-11375H has 4 cores and 8 threads. AMD offers 2 additional cores and 4 additional threads.

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS wins 3 out of 4 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including decisive victories in Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core tests. However, the Intel Core i7-11375H takes the most modern multi-threaded workload, Cinebench R23 multi-core, by a solid 7.1% margin.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput in current rendering engines, the Intel chip's R23 result is notable. It achieves 9775 points, a score that outpaces the AMD part despite AMD having 50% more cores. This suggests Intel's 5.00 GHz boost clock and architectural efficiency carry significant weight in heavily threaded modern workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS, meanwhile, dominates the older Cinebench R15 tests. It beats Intel by 40.5% in multi-core and 41.3% in single-core. These are massive margins, indicating that in legacy or less optimized workloads, the AMD chip is far ahead. The Ryzen also wins in Cinebench R23 single-core by 5.8%, showing better per-thread performance in that test.

The database places both chips at the 52nd percentile, meaning they are statistically equivalent in the broader CPU landscape. The average benchmark scores are close: 3122 for AMD versus 3018 for Intel, a gap of roughly 3.4%. Buyers should choose based on workload: AMD for older multi-threaded applications and single-threaded tasks, Intel for the latest generation multi-core rendering.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a pattern of generational preferences. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS scores 1656 against Intel's 985. The delta is -40.5%, meaning Intel trails by more than two-fifths. This is a substantial gap, reflecting the AMD chip's 6-core, 12-thread configuration outperforming Intel's 4-core, 8-thread design in this older benchmark.

Cinebench R15 single-core shows an even larger relative gap. AMD scores 235, Intel scores 138, and the delta is -41.3%. That is a staggering difference for a single-threaded test, suggesting the AMD architecture handles this workload far more efficiently than Intel's Tiger Lake implementation.

The picture flips in Cinebench R23 multi-core. Intel scores 9775, AMD scores 9131, and Intel wins with a 7.1% delta. This is a significant reversal. Despite having fewer cores, Intel's chip pulls ahead in the more recent rendering workload. The 5.00 GHz boost clock likely plays a role here, as does Intel's larger per-core L2 cache of 1.25 MB compared to AMD's 512 KB.

Cinebench R23 single-core goes back to AMD, with a score of 1465 against Intel's 1380. The delta is -5.8%. While not as dramatic as the R15 margins, it still represents a clear win for AMD in single-threaded performance under the newer benchmark.

Overall, the wins break down as 3 for AMD and 1 for Intel. Yet the single Intel win carries weight because it occurs in the most demanding, most current multi-threaded test. The data shows AMD's dominance fading as the workload becomes more modern, while Intel's strengths emerge in the latest rendering workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The Intel Core i7-11375H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ: Intel runs at 3.00 GHz, AMD at 3.30 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order: Intel reaches 5.00 GHz, AMD tops out at 4.50 GHz.

Thermal design power differs as well. Intel's TDP is 28 watts, while AMD's is 35 watts. The AMD chip consumes more power by specification but also provides more cores. Socket compatibility is distinct: Intel uses BGA 1449, AMD uses Socket FP7. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Memory support diverges. Intel supports DDR4, AMD supports DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth differs: Intel achieves 51.2 GB/s, AMD achieves 76.8 GB/s. That is a 25.6 GB/s advantage for AMD, a 50% increase in theoretical bandwidth.

PCIe support is identical: both offer Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ: Intel has Iris XE 96EU, AMD has Radeon 660M. The launch MSRP for Intel is $482; AMD has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectures represent different design philosophies. Intel uses Tiger Lake, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The die size is 146.1 mm². AMD uses Zen 3+ with the Rembrandt codename, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. AMD's die is larger at 208 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while AMD has a larger total L3 pool.

The process node gap is notable: 10 nm versus 6 nm. AMD's smaller node from TSMC allows for more transistors in a larger die area. The foundry split is Intel for Intel, TSMC for AMD, representing divergent manufacturing strategies.

Generation names reflect the architectural lineage. Intel is listed as Core i7 with Tiger Lake-H. AMD is listed as Ryzen 5 with Zen 3+ (Rembrandt). Memory support also ties into architecture: Intel's Tiger Lake pairs with DDR4, while AMD's Zen 3+ platform adopts DDR5, enabling the higher memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS wins in legacy multi-threaded workloads. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 40.5% advantage over Intel. This indicates older rendering engines or similarly structured applications will run significantly faster on the AMD chip. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration is the likely driver.

AMD also wins in single-threaded tests across both benchmark generations. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD leads by 41.3%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD leads by 5.8%. This consistency suggests the Zen 3+ architecture delivers superior per-thread performance in these specific tests, despite Intel's higher boost clock.

The Intel Core i7-11375H wins in modern multi-threaded rendering. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows Intel ahead by 7.1%. This is the most recent and demanding workload in the comparison. Intel's 5.00 GHz boost clock and larger per-core L2 cache may compensate for the core count disadvantage. For users running the latest rendering software, Intel's result is the stronger one.

Summarizing the use cases: choose AMD for older multi-threaded applications and single-threaded tasks. Choose Intel for current-generation multi-threaded rendering workloads. The database shows AMD winning the majority of tests, but Intel winning the most relevant modern one. The 52nd percentile placement for both chips confirms they are mid-pack performers overall, with workload-specific strengths that buyers should weigh accordingly.