AMD Ryzen 5 7535U vs Intel Core 3 100HL Comparison

The database pits two very different silicon philosophies against each other here: Intel's Core 3 100HL, a Raptor Lake-PS desktop part with a hybrid core layout, and AMD's Ryzen 5 7535U, a Rembrandt-R mobile chip built on TSMC's 6 nm process. Both land in the 76th percentile of all CPUs in the database and their average benchmark scores sit close together (23545 for the Intel chip versus 22791 for the AMD), but the head-to-head record is lopsided: the Core 3 100HL takes 10 of 15 shared tests, including two absolute blowouts in Cinebench R23. The Ryzen 5 7535U's wins are real but narrow, concentrated in integer-heavy and instruction-level workloads. Understanding why requires looking at what each chip actually is, because a 45 W desktop socket part and a 28 W mobile part were never designed to compete on equal footing.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. Pick the Core 3 100HL if sustained multi-core throughput matters: its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 14948 beats the Ryzen's 8591 by 74 percent, a gap large enough that no workload scenario in the recorded data closes it. Single-threaded responsiveness also favors Intel by a wide margin, with Passmark single-thread at 3735 versus 3203 and Cinebench R23 single-core at 2110 versus 1414. Pick the Ryzen 5 7535U if the platform is a thin-and-light laptop and the use case leans on integer math, encryption, or SIMD-style extended instructions, where it leads by margins of roughly 4 to 9 percent. It also does all of this at a 28 W TDP versus Intel's 45 W, and it brings ECC memory support plus 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, more than double the Intel chip's 8. Neither CPU is unlocked, so overclocking is off the table for both. If you are choosing a desktop build on Socket 1700, the decision is already made; if you are choosing a laptop, the Ryzen's efficiency profile and platform features justify it despite the raw benchmark deficit.

Architecture Differences

These chips could hardly be more different under the hood. The Core 3 100HL is built on Intel's 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry, using the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, and it fits Intel Socket 1700 as a desktop-segment part. It offers 8 cores and 12 threads, a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. Its cache strategy is dense and per-core heavy: 80 KB of L1 per core, a generous 2 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3.

The Ryzen 5 7535U is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP7, fabbed by TSMC on a 6 nm node, using Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename as part of the 7000 series. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, so the same thread count as Intel but two fewer physical cores. Its clocks run from a 2.90 GHz base to a 4.55 GHz boost, actually a higher base than the Intel chip. Its cache layout is the opposite trade-off: a smaller 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but a larger 16 MB shared L3 pool. The die measures 208 mm².

Memory support diverges sharply. Intel covers both DDR4 and DDR5, while AMD is DDR5 only with a stated memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Notably, the Ryzen supports ECC memory; the Core 3 100HL does not. PCIe is another AMD advantage, with Gen 4 at 20 CPU lanes against Intel's Gen 4 at 8 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ too: Intel pairs Iris Xe Graphics 48EU with the CPU, while AMD relies on the Radeon 660M. Both chips are active in production and both shipped without an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part was released in April 2024, the AMD part in January 2023.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Core 3 100HL wins 10 of 15 head-to-head tests and holds the higher average benchmark score, 23545 against 22791. Its biggest advantage is a 74 percent win in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 7535U win anything?

A: Yes, five tests: Cinebench R15 single-core (225 versus 212), Passmark data encryption (12706 versus 11964), extended instructions (13187 versus 12463), find prime numbers (50 versus 48), and integer math (62109 versus 56308). All are single-digit percentage wins.

Q: How do they compare against other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit in the 76th percentile versus all CPUs. The Core 3 100HL's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U and Intel Core i5-11500, both essentially tied with it (delta of -0.7 percent), while the Ryzen 5 7535U trades places with the Ryzen 5 2600X, Ryzen 5 6600U, Intel Core i5-12500H, and Intel Core Ultra 5 135U, all within about 1 percent.

Q: Which one supports ECC memory?

A: The Ryzen 5 7535U supports ECC; the Core 3 100HL does not. This matters for workstation or stability-critical builds.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: No. Both have a locked multiplier.

Q: What memory does each support?

A: The Core 3 100HL accepts DDR4 or DDR5 on a dual-channel bus. The Ryzen 5 7535U is DDR5 only, dual-channel, with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth recorded.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core 3 100HL | AMD Ryzen 5 7535U |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.55 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP7 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 3+ |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-PS | Rembrandt-R |

| Process node | 10 nm | 6 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die size | not recorded | 208 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 2 MB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 12 MB shared | 16 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory bandwidth | not recorded | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 8 CPU lanes | Gen 4, 20 CPU lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU | Radeon 660M |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2024-04-07 | 2023-01-03 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Start with the two results that define this matchup. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core 3 100HL scores 14948 against the Ryzen's 8591, a 74 percent blowout that reflects the two extra physical cores and the 45 W power budget. Cinebench R23 single-core goes the same direction: 2110 versus 1414, a 49.2 percent Intel win. Those two numbers alone explain why the average scores tilt toward Intel.

The older Cinebench R15 tells a more nuanced story. Intel still wins multi-core, 1506 versus 1330 (13.2 percent), but AMD takes single-core with 225 against 212, a 5.8 percent edge. This is the one rendering test where the Ryzen's per-clock efficiency shows through.

Passmark results split by workload type. Intel dominates floating point math, 42108 versus 33971 (24 percent), physics at 928 versus 839 (10.6 percent), random string sorting at 23223 versus 21267 (9.2 percent), and single-thread at 3735 versus 3203 (16.6 percent). Multi-thread is closer, 17586 versus 17039, a 3.2 percent Intel edge, which shows that general desktop workloads do not separate these chips as much as rendering does. Data compression is nearly a tie, 202225 versus 200252, just 1 percent apart.

AMD's Passmark wins cluster around integer and instruction-level work: integer math at 62109 versus 56308 (9.3 percent), data encryption at 12706 versus 11964 (5.8 percent), extended instructions at 13187 versus 12463 (5.5 percent), and find prime numbers at 50 versus 48 (4 percent).

Where Each One Wins

The Core 3 100HL is the pick for rendering, encoding-style sustained loads, and anything latency-sensitive. The 74 percent Cinebench R23 multi-core gap and the 49.2 percent single-core gap mean it handles both heavily threaded content creation and snappy day-to-day application use better. Physics simulation (10.6 percent ahead) and string sorting (9.2 percent ahead) reinforce its lead in game-adjacent and data-processing tasks. It belongs in a Socket 1700 desktop with a 45 W envelope.

The Ryzen 5 7535U wins where its architecture and platform align: integer-heavy compute (9.3 percent ahead), cryptographic workloads (5.8 percent ahead), and extended instruction throughput (5.5 percent ahead). Its practical advantages go beyond benchmarks: a 28 W TDP, 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes for storage and expansion, ECC support, and 16 MB of shared L3. For a mobile platform where the laptop chassis decides the silicon, these strengths make it a well-rounded choice, provided the workload does not lean on the multi-core rendering where the Intel part is in a different league.