AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core i5-14401E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a curiously narrow contest between the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the Intel Core i5-14401E. Across every Cinebench workload in the database, the Intel part wins, but by margins so thin they approach measurement noise. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 1830 against AMD's 1824, a delta of -0.3%. The R15 single-core test shows 258 versus 257, a -0.4% gap. Moving to R20, Intel takes multi-core 7627 to 7603 (-0.3%) and single-core 1076 to 1073 (-0.3%). The R23 results repeat the pattern: Intel leads multi-core 18161 to 18104 (-0.3%) and single-core 2564 to 2555 (-0.4%). The win tally is 6-0 in Intel's favor, yet the largest advantage anywhere is just 0.4%. This is not a case of one chip outclassing another; it is a statistical tie dressed up as a sweep.

The implications of these deltas deserve scrutiny. A 0.3% or 0.4% difference falls well within typical run-to-run variance for Cinebench, even on identical hardware. The database shows Intel's average benchmark score at 5253, which sits far below AMD's 28478, but that average reflects the entire benchmark suite, not just these Cinebench runs. For the six shared tests, the two processors behave as near-clones. AMD's percentile standing among all CPUs is 80, while Intel's is 60, a gap that stems from the broader suite where AMD's Passmark results dominate. The head-to-head data, however, suggests that in pure rendering workloads, neither chip has a substantive edge.

What stands out is the consistency of Intel's advantage. Every single-core test, from R15 to R23, shows Intel ahead by 0.3% or 0.4%. That pattern implies a small but real frequency or architectural edge in lightly threaded tasks, not random noise. Boost clocks differ, with AMD at 4.90 GHz and Intel at 4.70 GHz, yet Intel still wins single-core. The data suggests Intel's Raptor Lake core design extracts more instructions per cycle than AMD's Zen 4, at least in Cinebench's specific workload. Multi-core scores follow the same trajectory, with Intel ahead by 0.3% in all three generations of the test. With identical core and thread counts (6 cores, 12 threads), the multi-core results reflect per-core efficiency rather than parallel scaling.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD's Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Hawk Point. Intel's Core i5-14401E relies on Raptor Lake, a 10 nm Intel process, codenamed Raptor Lake-R. The process node difference is stark: 4 nm versus 10 nm. AMD packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while Intel's die measures 215 mm² with no transistor count recorded in the database. Smaller geometry and denser packing give AMD a theoretical power and area advantage, yet the benchmark data does not reflect that in raw performance.

Cache hierarchies differ noticeably. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger caches at every level may explain its slight single-core edge, as more cache reduces memory stalls. The L3 delta is 20 MB versus 16 MB, a 25% difference in favor of Intel. For workloads that fit within L3, Intel should see fewer main memory accesses. AMD's smaller die and higher transistor density, however, suggest shorter internal signal paths, which could offset some of Intel's cache advantage.

Memory support adds another layer of divergence. AMD supports only DDR5, with dual-channel operation and a measured bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but the database lists no bandwidth figure for Intel. That omission makes a direct memory throughput comparison impossible. Both support ECC memory, which positions them for professional or server-adjacent workloads. PCIe capabilities differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Intel's newer PCIe standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but AMD's extra lanes allow more simultaneous devices.

The integrated graphics tell a different story. AMD uses Radeon 760M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 730. The database provides no comparative graphics benchmarks, so the performance relationship remains unquantified. Power envelopes diverge sharply: AMD is rated at 28 W TDP, Intel at 65 W TDP. That 37 W difference suggests AMD targets efficiency while Intel targets sustained throughput in a desktop context. The sockets confirm this: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7 (mobile), Intel uses Intel Socket 1700 (desktop). Market segments match those sockets, with AMD listed as Mobile and Intel as Desktop.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate that for Cinebench workloads, the two processors are functionally equivalent. Intel wins every shared test, but the maximum delta is 0.4%, which the database's own percentile rankings suggest is negligible. AMD sits at the 80th percentile among all CPUs, Intel at the 60th, yet that gap comes from Passmark tests that Intel does not participate in. The recorded data includes six Passmark benchmarks for AMD (data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single thread) and zero Passmark results for Intel. Without those scores, Intel's average benchmark score falls to 5253, while AMD's rises to 28478.

The verdict from the head-to-head data is simple: neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage in rendering. Intel's single-core edge, while consistent, is too small to notice in real applications. AMD's efficiency advantage is real, however, with 28 W TDP versus 65 W TDP. For mobile or compact systems, AMD delivers the same Cinebench scores at less than half the power budget. For desktop systems with ample cooling and power, Intel's slightly higher scores come without penalty. The choice hinges on platform and power constraints, not raw benchmark leadership.

The recorded data also shows Intel's release date of 2024-06-30, two and a half months after AMD's 2024-04-15. Both remain in active production. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. The part numbers differ, with AMD listing two variants (100-000001354 for FP7r2, 100-000001382 for FP7) and Intel listing one (Q49JSRNJS).

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every specification except core count, thread count, ECC support, and memory bus width. Both use 6 cores and 12 threads. Both support ECC memory and dual-channel operation. Beyond those similarities, the differences are extensive:

• Base clock: AMD 3.50 GHz, Intel 2.50 GHz
• Boost clock: AMD 4.90 GHz, Intel 4.70 GHz
• TDP: AMD 28 W, Intel 65 W
• Socket: AMD Socket FP7, Intel Socket 1700
• Architecture: Zen 4, Raptor Lake
• Codename: Hawk Point, Raptor Lake-R
• Process node: 4 nm (TSMC), 10 nm (Intel)
• Die size: 178 mm², 215 mm²
• L1 cache per core: 64 KB, 80 KB
• L2 cache per core: 1 MB, 1.25 MB
• L3 cache shared: 16 MB, 20 MB
• Memory support: DDR5 only, DDR4 and DDR5
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (AMD), not recorded for Intel
• PCIe: Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Gen 5 with 16 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 760M, UHD Graphics 730
• Market segment: Mobile, Desktop
• Release date: 2024-04-15, 2024-06-30
• Transistor count: 25,000 million (AMD), not recorded for Intel

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-14401E boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the Intel Core i5-14401E list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The largest delta is 0.4%, which occurs in Cinebench R15 single-core (Intel 258 vs AMD 257) and Cinebench R23 single-core (Intel 2564 vs AMD 2555).

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core i5-14401E uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each CPU provide?

A: AMD provides 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 4, while Intel provides 16 lanes of PCIe Gen 5.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core i5-14401E has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 16 MB on the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS wins on efficiency and portability. Its 28 W TDP, compared to Intel's 65 W, makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is scarce. The database lists AMD's market segment as Mobile, and its socket (FP7) supports that classification. AMD also brings a larger PCIe lane count (20 versus 16), which benefits systems needing multiple NVMe drives or other Gen 4 devices. The Radeon 760M integrated graphics, while unbenchmarked here, represents a more modern GPU architecture than Intel's UHD Graphics 730. AMD's 4 nm process and 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die indicate a denser, potentially more power-efficient design.

The Intel Core i5-14401E wins on raw Cinebench scores, albeit marginally. Every recorded head-to-head test goes to Intel, with deltas of -0.3% or -0.4%. For users who run Cinebench as a proxy for rendering performance, Intel technically delivers more. Intel also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility in platform choice, whereas AMD is DDR5-only. The larger L1, L2, and L3 caches (80 KB, 1.25 MB, and 20 MB per respective level) give Intel a structural advantage in cache-sensitive workloads. Intel's PCIe Gen 5 support, despite fewer lanes, provides higher per-device bandwidth for the latest GPUs or storage controllers. The desktop socket (1700) and 65 W TDP suggest Intel is built for systems where power delivery is not a constraint.

The data does not support a clear winner for all use cases. For a compact, battery-powered mobile workstation, AMD's 28 W envelope delivers nearly identical Cinebench scores to Intel's 65 W chip. For a desktop workstation with unlimited cooling, Intel's consistent, if tiny, benchmark lead and broader memory support make it the safer pick. The percentile standings (AMD 80th, Intel 60th) reflect AMD's superior Passmark suite, but those tests do not appear in the head-to-head comparison. The measured reality is that these two processors trade blows within a fraction of a percent, and the deciding factor is the platform around them, not the silicon inside.