AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 vs Intel Core i7-5950HQ Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous in this matchup. Across every Cinebench iteration captured in the database, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 delivers higher scores than the Intel Core i7-5950HQ. There are no workload categories in which the Intel part claims a win based on the available measurements.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 wins in both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The multi-core tests show the Ryzen part with a consistent lead of 19.2% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The single-core tests show a nearly identical margin, with deltas of 19.6% in R15 and 19.1% in R23. This consistency across rendering generations indicates that the advantage is not tied to a particular software revision or workload type, but rather reflects a fundamental performance gap in both parallel and serial execution.

The Intel Core i7-5950HQ does have additional Geekbench entries in the database: a multi-core score of 4601 and a single-core score of 1353. However, the AMD part has no Geekbench entries recorded, so no direct head-to-head comparison can be made for those tests. The only comparable benchmarks are the six Cinebench tests, and the Ryzen part wins all six.

For the Intel part, its strongest relative showing comes from its average benchmark score of 2158, which places it in the 47th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD part also sits in the 47th percentile, with an average score of 2246. While the percentiles are identical, the raw average score difference of 88 points (2246 vs 2158) reflects the Ryzen part's higher absolute performance across the shared test suite.

The nearest rivals for each part provide context for their respective standings. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 sits within 0.6% of the Intel Core i7-1068NG7, the Intel Core i5-9400, the Intel Core i7-10710U, and the Intel Xeon D-1715TER. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core i5-10200H, the Intel Core i5-7640X, the AMD Ryzen 3 3300X, and the Intel Core i5-1145G7E. These rival clusters show that both processors occupy a similar performance tier relative to the broader CPU market, despite the Ryzen part's clear win in this direct comparison.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is the faster processor in every benchmark category where both parts have scores. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ does not win a single recorded test. The Ryzen part's margins are substantial and consistent, ranging from 19.1% to 19.6% depending on the specific test.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 should be the choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering performance, whether that workload is multi-threaded or single-threaded. The 8-thread configuration, the 16 MB shared L3 cache, and the higher base clock of 3.50 GHz all contribute to its advantage. It is also an unlocked processor, which the Intel part is not, although the database does not include overclocking benchmark results.

The Intel Core i7-5950HQ is an end-of-life mobile processor with a 47-watt TDP, whereas the AMD part is an active desktop processor with a 65-watt TDP. The Intel part does offer integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200, while the AMD part lists no integrated graphics in the database. For users who require a discrete GPU, this difference is irrelevant. For users who need integrated graphics, the Intel part has that capability, but its CPU performance is lower across every measured test.

The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) and a lower TDP (47 W vs 65 W), but these specifications do not translate into higher benchmark scores in the recorded data. The Ryzen part's higher base clock and larger cache appear to overcome the Intel part's boost advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest percentage win for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 occurs in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 110 against the Intel Core i7-5950HQ's 92, a delta of 19.6%. This is the only test where the margin exceeds 19.2%, and it indicates that the AMD Zen architecture holds a clear advantage in lightly threaded workloads from this era of software.

The multi-core tests show a tightly clustered set of margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 782 versus 656, a delta of 19.2%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 3261 versus 2736, again a delta of 19.2%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 7766 versus 6516, with the same 19.2% delta. This uniformity across three generations of Cinebench suggests that the performance scaling from R15 to R23 is identical for both parts, meaning the architectural efficiency difference is consistent rather than workload-dependent.

The single-core results follow a similar pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a score of 460 for the AMD part versus 386 for the Intel part, a delta of 19.2%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1096 versus 920, a delta of 19.1%. The slightly smaller margin in R23 single-core (19.1% vs 19.2%) is negligible and well within normal test variance.

The absolute score differences grow as the benchmarks become more demanding. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the gap is 126 points (782 vs 656). In R20 multi-core, the gap is 525 points (3261 vs 2736). In R23 multi-core, the gap is 1250 points (7766 vs 6516). These increasing absolute gaps reflect the longer duration of the newer tests, not a change in relative performance.

The Intel Core i7-5950HQ's Geekbench scores (4601 multi-core, 1353 single-core) cannot be compared directly because the AMD part has no Geekbench entries in the database. The head-to-head table in our measurements lists only the six Cinebench tests, and the AMD part wins all six.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has an average benchmark score of 2246, while the Intel Core i7-5950HQ has an average score of 2158. This difference of 88 points places both parts in the 47th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How large is the AMD part's lead in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 leads by 19.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (782 vs 656), Cinebench R20 multi-core (3261 vs 2736), and Cinebench R23 multi-core (7766 vs 6516).

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-5950HQ win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The Intel part has zero wins across the recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 wins all six Cinebench tests where both parts have scores.

Q: What are the memory support differences between the two parts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part also has larger L1 and L2 caches per core: 96 KB and 512 KB respectively, versus 64 KB and 256 KB for the Intel part.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is built on the Zen architecture, specifically the Summit Ridge revision, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 4,800 million transistors on a 192 mm² die. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ is built on the Broadwell-H architecture using a 14 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 182 mm². The transistor count for the Intel part is not recorded in the database.

Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the thread count is identical. The base clocks differ significantly: the AMD part runs at 3.50 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 2.90 GHz. The boost clocks are closer, with the Intel part at 3.80 GHz and the AMD part at 3.70 GHz. The AMD part's higher base clock likely contributes to its consistent single-thread advantage.

The cache hierarchy favors the AMD part at every level. The AMD part has 96 KB of L1 cache per core versus 64 KB for the Intel part. The AMD part has 512 KB of L2 cache per core versus 256 KB for the Intel part. The shared L3 cache is 16 MB on the AMD part versus 6 MB on the Intel part. These larger caches help explain the AMD part's performance lead in both single-thread and multi-thread tests.

The memory interface also differs. The AMD part supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel part supports DDR3. Both use a dual-channel bus. The Intel part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s; no bandwidth figure is recorded for the AMD part. The AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not, although the database does not specify the ECC capability of the AMD part (it is listed as false in the record).

The platform and market positioning differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 is a desktop processor on AMD Socket AM4, released on 2017-06-28, and is still in active production. It has an unlocked multiplier and no integrated graphics. The Intel Core i7-5950HQ is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1364, released on 2015-06-01, and is end-of-life. It has a locked multiplier and includes Iris Pro Graphics 6200 as integrated graphics. The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD part has no PCIe information recorded.

The TDP difference is notable: the AMD part is rated at 65 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 47 watts. This reflects the Intel part's mobile design intent, where lower power consumption is prioritized. The AMD part's higher TDP, combined with its higher base clock and larger cache, delivers the performance advantage seen in the benchmark data.

The Intel Core i7-5950HQ has a launch MSRP of $623. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1500 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The process nodes are both 14 nm, but the foundries differ (GlobalFoundries for AMD, Intel for the Intel part). The die sizes are close (192 mm² vs 182 mm²), but the AMD part packs significantly more transistors (4,800 million vs no recorded count for Intel) and much more cache into that area. The architectural choices, particularly the larger caches and higher base clock, translate directly into the 19% performance margins observed across all six Cinebench tests.