AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core i5-13500T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between these two processors, with the Intel Core i5-13500T claiming 12 wins against the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS’s 5. However, the magnitude of those wins tells a more nuanced story than the raw tally suggests.

The AMD processor’s most decisive victory comes in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, where it scores 18104 against Intel’s 11028. That is a massive 39.1% delta in AMD’s favor, a gap that dwarfs any other single benchmark result in this comparison. The AMD chip also dominates the Cinebench R23 singlecore test, posting 2555 versus 1754, a 31.4% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental performance tier gap in the modern Cinebench workload.

Intel’s wins, by contrast, are concentrated in the Passmark suite, often with substantial margins. The floating point math test shows Intel at 61640 versus AMD’s 43019, a 43.3% lead. Integer math follows with 84427 against 69839, a 20.9% delta. Data compression also favors Intel, 271348 to 246446, a 10.1% edge. These are the workloads where the Intel part’s higher core count and thread count can flex.

The older Cinebench versions present an interesting inversion. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel wins 1945 to 1824, a 6.6% margin. In R20 multicore, Intel again takes it, 8011 to 7603, a 5.4% lead. Yet in R23 multicore, AMD wins by nearly 40%. This suggests the R23 workload scales exceptionally well with the AMD architecture’s per-core efficiency, while the older tests respond better to Intel’s raw thread count.

Single-core results in Cinebench are also split. Intel wins R20 singlecore 1130 to 1073, a 5.3% delta. But AMD wins R15 singlecore 257 to 247, a 3.9% margin, and then crushes Intel in R23 singlecore by 31.4%. The Passmark single-thread test is nearly a tie, with Intel at 3580 and AMD at 3561, a 0.5% difference. The data shows that single-core leadership depends heavily on the specific benchmark generation.

AMD also takes the extended instructions test, 18507 to 16599, a 10.3% lead, and random string sorting, 30235 to 28893, a 4.4% edge. Intel counters with wins in data encryption (15543 vs 14962, 3.9%), prime number finding (73 vs 71, 2.8%), multithread (22654 vs 21465, 5.5%), and physics (1112 vs 1043, 6.6%).

Overall average scores are close: Intel’s average benchmark score is 28670, while AMD’s is 28478. Both sit at the 80th percentile versus all CPUs. The nearest rivals for both include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS and Intel Core 5 220H, with deltas under 0.4% in either direction.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is stark. Intel’s Core i5-13500T uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. It packs 14 cores and 20 threads, leveraging a hybrid design. AMD’s Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm node from TSMC, with 6 cores and 12 threads. The node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm represents a major lithography advantage for AMD.

Cache hierarchies differ considerably. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel’s larger L3 cache gives it a 24 MB versus 16 MB advantage in shared pool, though AMD’s smaller per-core cache structure is paired with a more efficient core design.

Clock speeds show AMD pushing higher. The Intel part runs a base clock of 1600 MHz with a 4.60 GHz boost. AMD runs a 3.50 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The boost clock delta of 0.30 GHz helps explain AMD’s strong single-core performance in newer benchmarks, despite Intel’s higher core count.

Power envelopes differ substantially. Intel’s TDP is 35 watts, while AMD’s is 28 watts. This 7-watt gap allows AMD to achieve its benchmark results at lower power draw, a meaningful efficiency indicator given the R23 results.

Memory support diverges. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, while AMD supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. AMD lists a memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s, while Intel’s field is null in the data. AMD also supports ECC memory, while Intel does not.

PCIe generations differ: Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Intel’s newer PCIe standard is a forward-looking feature, though AMD’s Gen 4 remains current for most workloads.

The integrated graphics also differ: Intel ships UHD Graphics 770, AMD ships Radeon 760M. AMD’s die size is 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors, while Intel’s die is 215 mm² with transistor count not listed. AMD’s smaller die on a denser node gives it a transistor density advantage.

Market positioning diverges clearly: Intel targets the desktop segment with Socket 1700, while AMD targets mobile with Socket FP7. Intel’s release date was January 2023; AMD’s was April 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-13500T wins in workloads that exploit many parallel threads with heavy arithmetic. Floating point math shows a 43.3% lead, integer math a 20.9% lead, and data compression a 10.1% lead. These results indicate a processor that excels in scientific computing, financial modeling, or any task with dense numerical processing. The 14 cores and 20 threads provide the parallel width needed for these workloads.

Intel also takes the multithread benchmark overall, 22654 to 21465, a 5.5% margin, and the physics benchmark, 1112 to 1043, a 6.6% edge. Data encryption shows a 3.9% lead. For users running productivity suites, compression tools, or engineering simulations, the Intel part appears better suited based on this data.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins decisively in the most modern Cinebench R23 tests. The multicore score of 18104 versus 11028 is a 39.1% advantage, and singlecore shows a 31.4% lead. This indicates that AMD’s Zen 4 architecture is substantially more efficient per core in current-generation rendering and content creation workloads. Extended instructions also favor AMD by 10.3%, suggesting strong SIMD performance.

Random string sorting goes to AMD by 4.4%, a workload that benefits from lower latency memory access and high clock speeds. The single-core Cinebench R15 win, 257 to 247, reinforces AMD’s per-core strength, though the Passmark single-thread test shows them nearly identical.

The use-case split is clear: Intel wins legacy and arithmetic-heavy multi-threaded tasks; AMD wins modern rendering workloads and instruction-extensive code. For content creators running Cinebench R23, AMD is the clear choice. For data processing or scientific computation in Passmark-style tests, Intel holds the advantage. The R23 delta of 39.1% is the single largest performance gap in this comparison, making it the most important differentiator for users targeting that specific benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-13500T has 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the benchmark results?

A: The Cinebench R23 multicore test shows the largest delta, with AMD scoring 18104 versus Intel’s 11028, a 39.1% difference in AMD’s favor.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a 28-watt TDP, while the Intel Core i5-13500T has a 35-watt TDP. AMD achieves its benchmark results at a lower power envelope.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-13500T does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-13500T boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-13500T has an average benchmark score of 28670, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has an average of 28478, a difference of 192 points.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-13500T | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS |

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

| Cores | 14 | 6 |

| Threads | 20 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 1600 MHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP7 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-S | Hawk Point |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Transistors | Not listed | 25,000 million |

| Die Size | 215 mm² | 178 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon 760M |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2024-04-15 |

| Part Number | SRMBQ | 100-000001354(FP7r2), 100-000001382(FP7) |

The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $232; AMD’s launch MSRP is not listed. The Intel processor’s larger core count, cache pool, and PCIe Gen 5 support contrast with AMD’s smaller, denser node, faster clocks, lower TDP, and ECC support.