AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS vs Intel Core i5-11400 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11400 and AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS represent two very different philosophies: a desktop processor built for sustained throughput versus a mobile chip designed for efficiency. The benchmark data is unambiguous, showing the Intel part winning all 17 head-to-head tests, but the margin of victory varies wildly depending on the workload, revealing a more complex story than a simple sweep.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the sheer consistency of the Intel advantage in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-11400 scores 14,132 against the Ryzen 5 7235HS’s 10,418, a 35.6% lead. This is not an outlier; the same delta appears across Cinebench R15 (1,424 vs 1,050, +35.6%) and R20 (5,935 vs 4,375, +35.7%). The PassMark suite reinforces this, with the Intel chip leading by 36.3% in multi-thread (16,690 vs 12,243) and a massive 47.3% in floating-point math (34,004 vs 23,091). The data suggests the i5-11400’s two extra physical cores (6 vs 4) are doing heavy lifting, translating into a near-uniform 35-47% advantage in raw parallel workloads.

However, the most extreme deltas appear in specific computational tasks. The Intel processor wins passmark_find_prime_numbers by 58.1% (49 vs 31) and random string sorting by 56.8% (23,974 vs 15,294). These are not just core-count victories; they point to architectural efficiency in integer and memory-bound operations. The extended instructions test shows a 36.9% lead (14,901 vs 10,887), indicating that the Intel chip’s instruction set handling is significantly more efficient. Even data compression, a common real-world task, shows a 36% gap in favor of Intel (206,952 vs 152,168).

The single-threaded picture is where the story gets interesting. While Intel still wins, the margin collapses dramatically. In passmark_single_thread, the i5-11400 scores 2,990 versus 2,873, a mere 4.1% lead. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a similar compression, with Intel ahead by 35.7% (1,995 vs 1,470), but this is a less extreme gap than the multi-core tests. The implication is that the AMD’s Zen 3+ architecture is highly competitive on a per-core basis, but it simply does not have the core count or thread capacity to match the Intel part when all resources are engaged. The data points to a processor that is nearly peerless in light, single-threaded tasks, but falls behind in any sustained, multi-threaded scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-11400 has an average benchmark score of 17,067, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS has an average score of 16,902. This places them in the 71st and 70th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively, making them very close overall performers.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in single-threaded workloads. The PassMark single-thread score for the AMD is 2,873 versus Intel’s 2,990, a difference of only 4.1%. This shows the AMD’s core design is highly efficient, but it lacks the multi-core grunt to win any of the 17 head-to-head tests.

Q: How does the core count difference affect performance?

A: The Intel i5-11400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 2-core advantage for Intel is reflected in the consistent 35-47% lead in multi-threaded benchmarks like Cinebench R23 and PassMark multi-thread.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Intel processor leads by 58.1% (49 vs 31). This indicates a substantial advantage in specific integer-heavy and algorithmic workloads, far exceeding the average multi-core delta.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance tier?

A: The data says yes, narrowly. The Intel's average score is 17,067, and the AMD's is 16,902, a difference of less than 1%. Both sit at the 70th-71st percentile, suggesting they are comparable in overall mixed workloads, despite the Intel's dominance in specific tests.

Q: Does the AMD processor have any architectural advantages?

A: The most notable is memory bandwidth. The AMD supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, compared to the Intel's DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. Despite this theoretical advantage, it does not translate into benchmark wins in the data provided.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Intel Core i5-11400 uses the Rocket Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process with a die size of 276 mm². In contrast, the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS is based on the Zen 3+ architecture (codenamed Rembrandt-R), built on TSMC’s 6 nm process with a smaller 210 mm² die. This process advantage for AMD does not result in a performance win, but it likely contributes to its lower 45W TDP versus Intel’s 65W.

Cache configurations also differ. Intel allocates 80 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a 12 MB shared L3 cache. AMD’s design uses 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. This 4 MB difference in shared cache could be a factor in the Intel’s superior performance in data compression and sorting tasks, where larger caches reduce memory traffic. The Intel chip also features a larger 12 MB L3, which may explain its 36% lead in data compression (206,952 vs 152,168).

Memory support is another clear divergence. The Intel part is limited to DDR4, while the AMD supports DDR5 and boasts a higher theoretical memory bandwidth (76.8 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s). Despite this, the AMD still loses in all memory-sensitive benchmarks, suggesting that raw bandwidth is not the bottleneck; core count and cache efficiency are. The AMD also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel. Both are locked (multiplierUnlocked: false) and use PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11400 | AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 4 / 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | AMD Socket FP7 |

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

| Die Size | 276 mm² | 210 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 12 MB | 8 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | Radeon 660M |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

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

The differences are stark. The Intel chip has a higher boost clock (4.40 GHz vs 4.20 GHz) and more cores, but the AMD has a higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and a smaller, more efficient process node. The Intel is a desktop part with a 65W TDP, while the AMD is a 45W mobile part. The Intel’s launch MSRP was $182, while the AMD has no listed launch MSRP. The Intel is also end-of-life, whereas the AMD is active in production.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Core i5-11400 is the superior performer in every single test, winning all 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its advantages range from a modest 4.1% in single-thread to a massive 58.1% in prime number finding. The consistent 35-47% lead in multi-threaded workloads is decisive. The data suggests that for any user prioritizing raw computational throughput—whether for rendering, compiling, or heavy multitasking—the Intel i5-11400 is the unequivocal choice. The AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS, while competitive in single-threaded tasks, cannot match the Intel’s multi-core performance, which is a critical factor in modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i5-11400: The data shows this is the winner for any multi-threaded, compute-intensive task. It excels in Cinebench R23 multi-core (14,132 vs 10,418), floating-point math (34,004 vs 23,091), and integer math (57,601 vs 40,174). Its biggest wins are in specialized tasks like prime number finding (+58.1%) and random string sorting (+56.8%), making it the pick for scientific computing, data analysis, and software development where such operations are common. It also leads in data encryption by 13.4% (10,264 vs 9,051), a key metric for security workloads. With a 71st percentile ranking, it is a solid desktop workhorse.

AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS: While the AMD loses every benchmark, it is not without a niche. Its single-thread performance is nearly on par with the Intel (2,873 vs 2,990, a 4.1% gap). This suggests it can handle everyday responsive tasks like web browsing and office applications without a noticeable difference. Its mobile segment (45W TDP vs 65W) and support for DDR5 memory make it a more power-efficient option for laptops, though the lack of a benchmark win means it offers no performance advantage in the data. The 70th percentile ranking indicates it is still a capable processor for general use, but the data cannot justify choosing it over the Intel part for any performance-focused application.