AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core 5 211E Comparison

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and Intel Core 5 211E occupy very different positions in the processor market, with the AMD part being a 28-watt mobile chip built on a 4 nm process, while the Intel part is a 65-watt desktop chip built on a 10 nm process. Despite their differing targets, the benchmark data in the database offers a clear picture of their relative performance across a wide range of workloads. The Intel Core 5 211E wins the majority of the recorded tests, but the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS holds significant wins in two specific areas that might matter more to certain users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 5 211E dominates the standard rendering benchmarks. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 2055 against AMD's 1824, a delta of -11.2% for the AMD chip. The single-core test shows the same pattern: Intel scores 289 versus AMD's 257, also an -11.1% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, Intel again leads by -11.2% in both multicore (8563 vs 7603) and single-core (1208 vs 1073). Cinebench R23 continues the trend, with Intel ahead by -11.2% in multicore (20389 vs 18104) and single-core (2878 vs 2555). These results indicate a consistent Intel advantage in heavily threaded and lightly threaded CPU rendering tasks, with the margin holding steady around 11% across all three Cinebench versions.

The PassMark suite shows a similar overall pattern, but with larger swings in specific tests. In data compression, Intel scores 346757 against AMD's 246446, a substantial -28.9% delta. Floating point math shows the biggest gap: Intel's 66402 versus AMD's 43019, a -35.2% delta. Integer math also favors Intel, with 88117 against 69839, a -20.7% delta. Data encryption goes to Intel at 17938 versus 14962, a -16.6% delta, and extended instructions follow at 21592 versus 18507, a -14.3% delta. The multithread test is closer, with Intel at 23833 and AMD at 21465, a -9.9% delta. Random string sorting shows Intel ahead at 34308 versus 30235, an -11.9% delta. Single-thread performance in PassMark matches the Cinebench single-core result: Intel scores 4006 against AMD's 3561, an -11.1% delta.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS does post two wins, and they are notable. In the find prime numbers test, AMD scores 71 against Intel's 43, a massive +65.1% delta in AMD's favor. In the physics test, AMD scores 1043 versus Intel's 702, a +48.6% delta. These are not marginal victories; they show the AMD architecture handling prime number generation and physics calculations with significantly higher efficiency, likely due to the Zen 4 core design's integer and branch handling characteristics. Outside of these two tests, Intel takes the remaining 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 5 211E scores 20389, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS scores 18104. Intel leads by -11.2% in this test.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins the PassMark find prime numbers test (71 vs 43, a +65.1% delta) and the PassMark physics test (1043 vs 702, a +48.6% delta).

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

A: The Intel Core 5 211E leads in both Cinebench R23 single-core (2878 vs 2555) and PassMark single-thread (4006 vs 3561), with a -11.1% delta in both cases.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel Core 5 211E supports 76.8 GB/s. AMD has the higher memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the Intel Core 5 211E list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What is the Intel Core 5 211E's launch MSRP?

A: The launch MSRP is $221.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 5 211E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The manufacturing process difference is significant: the AMD chip is fabricated at 4 nm, while the Intel chip uses 10 nm, which explains part of the power and efficiency gap between the two parts.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core caches on the Intel part contribute to its higher single-threaded scores, while the larger shared L3 cache helps with multi-threaded workloads that reuse data across cores.

The AMD processor integrates a Radeon 760M GPU, while the Intel processor uses UHD Graphics 730. Both are integrated graphics solutions, but they belong to different GPU families and performance classes. The AMD chip also supports DDR5 memory, while the Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5, offering more flexibility in memory choice for system builders.

PCIe support differs as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core 5 211E provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The newer PCIe generation on the Intel side allows for higher bandwidth to compatible devices, though the AMD part has more total lanes.

The transistor count and die size also highlight the process difference. The AMD chip has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while the Intel chip's transistor count is not recorded in the database, but its die size is 257 mm². The smaller die and higher transistor density on the AMD part reflect the more advanced 4 nm TSMC process.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are a major differentiator. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 5 211E has 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel chip offers 4 more cores and 4 more threads, which explains its lead in multi-threaded benchmarks despite the AMD chip's higher base clock.

Clock speeds differ in base frequency but match in boost. The AMD chip has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and the same boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The lower base clock on the Intel part is offset by its additional cores and larger caches.

Thermal design power is another major difference. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core 5 211E has a TDP of 65 watts. This is a substantial gap, and it reflects the different market segments: the AMD part is designed for mobile systems where power efficiency is critical, while the Intel part is a desktop chip with more thermal headroom.

Socket and platform requirements differ completely. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1700. These are not interchangeable platforms, so a system built around one processor cannot easily switch to the other.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The AMD chip supports 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel chip supports 76.8 GB/s, giving the AMD part a 12.8 GB/s advantage in theoretical memory throughput.

Release dates differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS was released on 2024-04-15, while the Intel Core 5 211E was released on 2025-01-12. The Intel part is the newer release by roughly nine months.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 5 211E wins in nearly every general-purpose computing workload recorded in the database. It leads in all Cinebench tests, both multicore and single-core, with a consistent -11.2% delta. It wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. For users running rendering workloads, compression tasks, encryption, or general productivity software that leverages multiple cores, the Intel chip is the stronger choice based on the recorded scores.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins in two specialized areas: prime number finding and physics calculations. The find prime numbers test shows a +65.1% delta in AMD's favor, and the physics test shows a +48.6% delta. These results suggest the Zen 4 architecture has a significant advantage in workloads that involve prime number generation and physics simulation, which could matter for certain scientific or computational tasks.

The AMD chip also has advantages outside of raw benchmark scores. It has a much lower TDP at 28 watts versus 65 watts, making it more suitable for thin and light laptops or fanless designs. It supports higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. It is built on a more advanced 4 nm process, which contributes to its efficiency. The AMD chip also uses a smaller die at 178 mm² versus 257 mm².

The Verdict

The data clearly shows the Intel Core 5 211E as the higher-performing processor in the majority of recorded benchmarks. It wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench versions and most PassMark workloads. Its 10 cores and 16 threads give it a structural advantage over the AMD chip's 6 cores and 12 threads, and its larger caches contribute to its single-threaded lead. The Intel chip's 86th percentile ranking among all CPUs versus the AMD chip's 80th percentile reinforces this performance gap.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, however, is not without its strengths. Its two benchmark wins are substantial, with the find prime numbers test showing a +65.1% delta and the physics test showing a +48.6% delta. These are large margins and indicate that for specific workloads, the AMD architecture is significantly more efficient. The AMD chip also draws far less power at 28 watts versus 65 watts, which is a critical factor for mobile systems.

The choice between these two processors depends entirely on the use case. The Intel Core 5 211E is the better option for users who need maximum performance across a broad range of applications, especially rendering, compression, and multithreaded productivity tasks. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is the better option for users who prioritize power efficiency, need a mobile form factor, or run workloads that specifically benefit from its prime number and physics performance advantages. The database shows two capable processors with different strengths, and the correct pick is the one that matches the workload.