AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS vs Intel Xeon W-2133 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data splits exactly evenly, with each processor taking two wins, but the margins tell very different stories. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS scores 1656 against the Intel Xeon W-2133’s 1075, a commanding 54% advantage. The single-core gap is even wider in relative terms: 235 versus 151, a 55.6% delta favoring the AMD part. These are decisive, generational-scale victories.

The Intel Xeon W-2133 flips the script in the newer Cinebench R23 workload. Its multi-core score of 10676 tops the AMD’s 9131 by 14.5%, and its single-core result of 1507 edges out 1465 by 2.8%. The R23 multi-core win is substantial, but the single-core margin is narrow. Meanwhile, the R15 results show the AMD at 54% and 55.6% ahead — margins more than three times larger than Intel’s biggest advantage.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two are nearly inseparable. AMD’s average is 3122, while Intel’s is 3087. That 35-point difference is roughly 1.1%, well within noise. Both sit at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite their very different workload-specific behaviors.

The R15 results likely reflect the AMD’s much higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, while the R23 multi-core outcome suggests the Intel’s higher sustained throughput under a 140W power envelope. The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals lists corroborate this: AMD’s closest rival is the Ryzen 3 5425U at 3124 average (a -0.1% gap), while Intel’s nearest is the Core i7-8700B at 3086 (exactly 0% delta). Neither chip is an outlier in its peer group.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS is built on the Zen 3+ architecture (codenamed Rembrandt) using TSMC’s 6 nm process, with a die size of 208 mm². The Intel Xeon W-2133 uses the Skylake architecture (Skylake-W) on Intel’s 14 nm process, with a much larger 484 mm² die. That process gap — 6 nm versus 14 nm — explains a great deal of the power and efficiency disparity.

Both chips have 6 cores and 12 threads, so the core-count comparison is a draw. The cache layouts differ notably. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel matches the 64 KB L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 1 MB per core, while its shared L3 is only 8.25 MB. The larger L2 on the Intel could help in certain repeated-access workloads, but the AMD’s larger L3 pool gives it more aggregate cache capacity.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD uses DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, yielding 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel uses DDR4 in a quad-channel setup, reaching 85.3 GB/s. Despite the older memory type, the extra channels give the Xeon the bandwidth edge. The AMD does not support ECC memory; the Intel does, which is typical for a server/workstation part.

PCIe connectivity also differs by a wide margin. The AMD offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel provides PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes. The Intel’s lane count is more than double, suited for workstation expansion, while the AMD’s Gen 4 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth. The AMD integrates a Radeon 660M GPU; the Intel has no integrated graphics.

The sockets reflect their segments: AMD Socket FP7 for mobile versus Intel Socket 2066 for desktop/workstation. The AMD’s TDP is 35W, while the Intel’s is 140W — a fourfold difference that shows in the R15 results where the AMD excels, likely due to its ability to boost aggressively within a mobile power budget. The Intel is marked end-of-life with a release date of 2017-08-28, while the AMD is active production. The Intel’s launch MSRP was $617. The AMD’s multiplier is locked, as is the Intel’s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS dominates in older Cinebench R15 loads, both multi-core and single-core. The 54% multi-core and 55.6% single-core advantages indicate that for legacy software or workloads optimized around that benchmark’s characteristics, the AMD is dramatically faster. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz directly supports this, as does its modern 6 nm process allowing high clocks at low power. The Radeon 660M integrated graphics also make it a self-contained mobile solution, though the benchmark data does not cover GPU performance.

The Intel Xeon W-2133 wins in Cinebench R23, with a 14.5% multi-core lead and a 2.8% single-core lead. The R23 multi-core result is the most significant modern-workload win here, suggesting that for current rendering or compute tasks that scale with sustained throughput, the Intel’s 140W envelope and quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth (85.3 GB/s) provide an advantage. Its 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and ECC support position it for workstation builds where expansion and data integrity matter more than raw single-thread speed.

For users prioritizing energy efficiency and portability, the AMD’s 35W TDP versus the Intel’s 140W is decisive, though the data does not include power draw measurements. The AMD is also the only one with integrated graphics, making it viable without a discrete GPU. The Intel requires a separate graphics card. For memory bandwidth-sensitive tasks, the Intel’s 85.3 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s gives it a small edge, but the AMD’s DDR5 support offers a modern upgrade path.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2133 scores 1507 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS’s 1465, a 2.8% advantage for Intel.

Q: How much faster is the AMD in Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: The AMD scores 1656 against Intel’s 1075, a 54% difference in AMD’s favor.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2133 supports ECC memory; the AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each?

A: The AMD has 76.8 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5, while the Intel has 85.3 GB/s with quad-channel DDR4.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The AMD averages 3122, and the Intel averages 3087, a difference of roughly 1.1% in AMD’s favor.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS | Intel Xeon W-2133 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 140 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 2066 |

| Architecture | Zen 3+ | Skylake |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (Intel) |

| Die Size | 208 mm² | 484 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 8.25 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, Dual-channel | DDR4, Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 48 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 660M | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

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

| Release Date | Not listed | 2017-08-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $617 |

The Verdict

The data presents a split decision. The AMD Ryzen 5 6600HS wins decisively in Cinebench R15, with margins of 54% and 55.6% that dwarf the Intel’s wins. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock, 6 nm process, and 35W TDP make it the clear choice for mobile or power-constrained environments. The integrated Radeon 660M adds functionality the Intel cannot match. If the workload is older-generation rendering or single-threaded tasks that respond to high clocks, the AMD is the data-backed pick.

The Intel Xeon W-2133 takes Cinebench R23, including a 14.5% multi-core lead, which is the more modern benchmark. Its 140W TDP, quad-channel DDR4 at 85.3 GB/s, and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes indicate a workstation-class part built for sustained throughput and expansion. ECC memory support is a concrete differentiator for data-integrity-sensitive use cases. The Intel’s launch MSRP was $617, and it is end-of-life, but the benchmark results show it still holds its own in current rendering loads.

For a buyer choosing between a 35W mobile chip and a 140W workstation chip, the decision hinges on the workload. The AMD wins on efficiency, clock speed, and older benchmarks. The Intel wins on modern multi-core rendering, memory bandwidth, and platform features like ECC and PCIe lanes. Both sit at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs, and their average scores are within 1.1% of each other. The tie in the head-to-head (2 wins each) is accurate: neither is a universal victor. The AMD is the better mobile processor; the Intel is the better workstation processor, strictly per the benchmark and specification data.