AMD Ryzen 5 9500F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a near-split between the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, with AMD winning 6 of the 11 shared PassMark tests and Intel taking 5. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

AMD’s largest victory comes in integer math, where the Ryzen 5 9500F scores 84,198 against Intel’s 64,934, a 29.7% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in either direction across the entire head-to-head set. The desktop chip also dominates data compression, posting 325,678 versus 276,539, a 17.8% lead. Extended instructions go AMD’s way by 10.3% (26,370 vs. 23,906), while single-thread performance shows a slim 1.9% edge (4,258 vs. 4,180). Random string sorting is nearly identical, with AMD ahead by just 0.3% (34,174 vs. 34,082).

Intel’s counterpunches are heavier in specific workloads. Floating point math is the standout: the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 84,067 against AMD’s 56,570, a 32.7% blowout. Physics tests show a 31.4% Intel advantage (2,697 vs. 1,851), and prime number finding favors Intel by 27.6% (304 vs. 220). Data encryption goes Intel’s way by 26.4% (21,367 vs. 15,716). The multithread score is effectively a tie, with Intel ahead by just 1.4% (28,717 vs. 28,312).

Looking at the broader database context, the Ryzen 5 9500F sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 52,873. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 (52,901, -0.1%), Intel Xeon 634 (52,974, -0.2%), AMD EPYC 7313P (53,206, -0.6%), and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53,288, -0.8%). The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, by contrast, lands in the 84th percentile with an average score of 33,989. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H (34,083, -0.3%), Intel Core i7-12800HX (33,875, +0.3%), Intel Xeon 6353P (33,844, +0.4%), and AMD EPYC 4244P (34,220, -0.7%).

The average score gap between the two processors is substantial: 52,873 versus 33,989, a difference of roughly 55.5% in AMD’s favor. Yet the head-to-head tests show Intel winning several specialized workloads by large margins, which suggests the average score may obscure where each chip actually excels.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F wins 6 of the 11 shared tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 5. AMD’s wins include data compression, extended instructions, integer math, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. Intel’s wins include data encryption, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, and physics.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest delta is in floating point math, where Intel leads by 32.7% (84,067 vs. 56,570). The second-largest is AMD’s 29.7% lead in integer math (84,198 vs. 64,934).

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Ryzen 5 9500F edges ahead by 1.9% in the PassMark single-thread test, scoring 4,258 versus Intel’s 4,180. This is a narrow margin, nearly within measurement noise.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen 5 9500F has an average benchmark score of 52,873, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33,989. AMD’s score is about 55.5% higher, placing it in the 91st percentile versus Intel’s 84th percentile.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H competitive in any multithreaded workload?

A: Yes, Intel narrowly wins the PassMark multithread test by 1.4% (28,717 vs. 28,312). Intel also has large leads in physics (31.4%) and floating point math (32.7%), which are often relevant to certain multithreaded tasks.

Q: What does the data suggest about workload specialization?

A: AMD dominates integer-heavy and compression tasks, while Intel dominates floating-point-heavy and encryption tasks. The two chips are not interchangeable; each has clear zones of advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 9500F is the clear choice for workloads that depend on integer throughput, data compression, and extended instruction sets. The 29.7% lead in integer math is decisive, and the 17.8% edge in data compression reinforces this pattern. For users processing large datasets, running compression algorithms, or executing code that relies on integer operations, the Ryzen 5 9500F delivers measurably more work per unit time. Its single-thread advantage, while modest at 1.9%, also makes it slightly stronger for latency-sensitive tasks that depend on a single fast core.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, conversely, is the stronger option for floating-point mathematics, physics simulations, and cryptographic workloads. The 32.7% lead in floating point math is the largest margin recorded between these two chips, and the 31.4% physics advantage suggests Intel’s architecture handles scientific and simulation code more efficiently. The 26.4% encryption lead further points to workloads involving security, hashing, or secure communications. Intel’s multithread win, albeit narrow at 1.4%, adds a slight edge for broadly parallel workloads.

Random string sorting is statistically tied (0.3% difference), indicating neither chip has a meaningful advantage there. The single-thread results are also close enough that real-world differences would be hard to distinguish. For users who need a balanced desktop processor with a slight lean toward integer and compression tasks, the Ryzen 5 9500F fits. For mobile or embedded applications that prioritize floating-point and encryption performance, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the data-backed pick.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on paper. The Ryzen 5 9500F is a desktop part with 6 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 3.80 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is a mobile part with 12 cores and 12 threads, a base clock of 1.90 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Intel has twice the core count but the same thread count, meaning it relies on more physical cores without hyperthreading, while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 12 threads from 6 cores.

Thermal design power differs markedly: AMD is rated at 65 W, Intel at 25 W. This reflects their intended use cases: desktop versus mobile. The Ryzen 5 9500F uses an AMD Socket AM5, while the Core Ultra 5 338H uses an Intel BGA 2540, which is soldered and not upgradeable. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier; Intel’s is locked.

Memory support also differs. AMD uses DDR5, while Intel uses LPDDR5X. Both are dual-channel, but Intel’s memory bandwidth is rated at 136.5 GB/s versus AMD’s 89.6 GB/s. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe lane counts differ significantly: AMD provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes. The Intel chip includes integrated Arc B370 graphics; the AMD chip has no integrated graphics.

The Ryzen 5 9500F has a launch MSRP of $219. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The Ryzen 5 9500F is built on Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Granite Ridge, part of AMD’s 9000 series. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, with 8,315 million transistors on a 70.6 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is built on Panther Lake architecture, part of Intel’s Core Ultra Series 3, using a 3 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. No transistor count or die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Ryzen 5 9500F has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Intel’s per-core L1 and L2 are larger, but AMD’s L3 is nearly double Intel’s total. This could explain AMD’s advantage in integer and compression tasks, which often benefit from larger shared caches.

The Intel chip integrates Arc B370 graphics, making it a complete system-on-chip solution for mobile devices. The AMD chip relies on a discrete GPU. Intel’s process node is 3 nm, smaller than AMD’s 4 nm, though the two are from different foundries and are not directly comparable. The Intel chip’s higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s vs. 89.6 GB/s) may contribute to its floating-point and encryption wins, though it is paired with lower base and boost clocks.

The Verdict

The database shows two processors optimized for different ends of the performance spectrum. The Ryzen 5 9500F delivers a higher average benchmark score (52,873 vs. 33,989), sits in a higher percentile (91st vs. 84th), and wins the majority of head-to-head tests. Its integer math lead of 29.7% and data compression lead of 17.8% make it the stronger choice for desktop workloads involving data processing, compilation, and general productivity where integer operations dominate.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, despite its lower average score, wins the tests that matter for specific domains. Its 32.7% floating-point lead, 31.4% physics advantage, and 26.4% encryption edge make it the better fit for scientific computing, simulation, and cryptographic workloads. Its 12 physical cores, despite matching AMD’s 12 threads, appear to help in certain parallel tasks, as shown by its narrow multithread win.

For a desktop user building a system with a discrete GPU, the Ryzen 5 9500F is the data-supported pick: higher percentile, higher average score, and wins in the most common productivity benchmarks. For a mobile user needing integrated graphics, lower power consumption (25 W vs. 65 W), and stronger floating-point performance, the Core Ultra 5 338H is the clear choice. The data does not indicate a universal winner; it indicates a fork between desktop integer performance and mobile floating-point performance.