AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core i7-12650H Comparison

The Intel Core i7-12650H and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS are two mobile processors that land in nearly the same spot on the performance curve: both sit in the 80th percentile against all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 28815 for the Intel chip and 28478 for the AMD part. Yet the way each one gets there is very different, and the head-to-head record (9 wins for Intel, 8 for AMD across 17 tests) barely hints at how lopsided individual workloads can be. Depending on what you run, this comparison is either a coin flip or a blowout.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Start with the short-burst tests, where the two are almost inseparable. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-12650H posts 1851.5 against 1824 for the Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, a 1.5 percent edge for Intel. Cinebench R20 multi-core is even tighter: 7608 versus 7603, a margin of just 0.1 percent. Single-core in R20 is a dead heat at 1073 points each. These are tests that finish quickly, and the results suggest both chips behave similarly under brief, bursty loads.

The R23 results tell a completely different story. The 8640HS scores 18104 in R23 multi-core while the i7-12650H manages 12074, meaning AMD leads by 33.3 percent. Single-core is nearly as dramatic: 2555 for AMD against 1763 for Intel, a 31 percent gap. Sustained rendering and modern single-thread performance clearly favor the newer Zen 4 silicon. If your workload runs long enough for the Ryzen to stretch its legs, the Alder Lake part has no answer in this suite.

Passmark splits the difference in interesting ways. The i7-12650H dominates the classic compute subtests: physics at 1430 versus 1043 (a 37.1 percent lead), floating point math at 54934 versus 43019 (27.7 percent ahead), find prime numbers at 91 versus 71 (28.2 percent ahead), and integer math at 73641 versus 69839 (5.4 percent ahead). It also wins the overall Passmark multithread score, 21962 to 21465, a 2.3 percent margin.

The 8640HS strikes back in the tests that matter for modern instruction sets and memory-sensitive work. Extended instructions: 18507 versus 15438, a 16.6 percent AMD win. Random string sorting: 30235 versus 26591, AMD ahead by 12.1 percent. Data encryption: 14962 versus 14041, AMD by 6.2 percent. Single-thread is essentially tied with a slight AMD edge, 3561 versus 3539. Data compression goes to Intel, 250026 versus 246446, a 1.5 percent gap that is close enough to be noise.

The pattern is consistent: Intel wins the throughput-heavy Passmark subtests thanks to its extra cores, while AMD wins anything that leans on per-core efficiency, new instruction support, or memory subsystem behavior.

The Verdict

Both processors sit in the 80th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so neither is a weak choice. The i7-12650H averages 28815 against 28478 for the 8640HS, and its nearest rivals in the database (the Core i5-12600H, Core i9-13900H, Ryzen 5 5600XT, and Core i5-13500T) all cluster within half a percent of it. The 8640HS is bracketed by the Xeon E-2436, Ryzen 7 PRO 6850HS, Core 5 220H, and Ryzen 7 PRO 6850U, again within a fraction of a percent. These are performance twins on aggregate.

Pick based on your workload, not the average. Rendering and sustained content creation go decisively to the 8640HS: a 33.3 percent advantage in R23 multi-core is enormous, and the 31 percent single-core lead compounds it. Legacy-style compute benchmarks, physics simulation, floating point, and general multi-core grunt go to the i7-12650H with its 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD chip also runs at a TDP of 28 watts versus 45 watts for the Intel part, which matters in thinner chassis, and its memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s with DDR5 support is the more modern platform. The Intel chip's DDR4 compatibility, on the other hand, suits systems built around older memory.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, decisively. It scores 18104 multi-core versus 12074, a 33.3 percent lead, and 2555 single-core versus 1763, a 31 percent lead.

Q: Which one wins the overall Passmark suite?

A: The i7-12650H, scoring 21962 to 21465 in the multithread test, a 2.3 percent margin. It also wins physics (1430 versus 1043), floating point math (54934 versus 43019), integer math (73641 versus 69839), find prime numbers (91 versus 71), and data compression (250026 versus 246446).

Q: Where does the 8640HS win in Passmark?

A: Extended instructions (18507 versus 15438), random string sorting (30235 versus 26591), data encryption (14962 versus 14041), and single-thread (3561 versus 3539).

Q: Which CPU is more power efficient on paper?

A: The 8640HS has a TDP of 28 watts versus 45 watts for the i7-12650H, and it still matches or beats it in most single-core and several multi-core tests, which suggests strong efficiency per watt.

Q: How do they compare against the broader market?

A: Both sit in the 80th percentile versus all CPUs in the database. The Intel chip's average benchmark score is 28815 and the AMD chip's is 28478.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS supports ECC; the i7-12650H does not. That is relevant for workstation or business deployments where data integrity matters.

Specification Differences

The two differ meaningfully across nearly every spec that counts. Core counts: 10 cores and 16 threads for the i7-12650H versus 6 cores and 12 threads for the 8640HS. Clocks favor AMD at both ends: a 3.50 GHz base versus 2.30 GHz, and a 4.90 GHz boost versus 4.70 GHz. TDP is 45 watts for Intel against 28 watts for AMD, a substantial gap for thermally constrained laptops.

Memory support diverges: the Intel chip accepts both DDR4 and DDR5, while the AMD chip is DDR5 only with a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Both run dual-channel. The AMD part adds ECC support. PCI Express is identical on paper: Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes on each.

Cache breaks along different lines. The i7-12650H carries more per-core L1 (80 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (1.25 MB versus 1 MB), plus a larger 24 MB shared L3 against 16 MB. The integrated graphics differ too: Intel pairs the UHD Graphics brand, while AMD ships the Radeon 760M. Sockets are naturally incompatible (Intel BGA 1744 versus AMD Socket FP7). Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The 8640HS was released on April 15, 2024, and carries 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die; the i7-12650H measures 217 mm² with no transistor count recorded.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different design philosophies. The i7-12650H is Alder Lake-H, Intel's 12th Gen Core family, built on Intel's own 10 nm process. It uses a hybrid approach to reach its 10 cores and 16 threads, which explains its strong showings in heavily threaded Passmark subtests like physics and floating point math.

The 8640HS is Hawk Point, a Zen 4 design fabbed on TSMC's 4 nm node. That node advantage shows up in the numbers that reflect per-core capability: the 31 percent single-core win in R23, the 16.6 percent extended instructions win, and the higher base and boost clocks despite a much lower TDP. The Ryzen's smaller L3 capacity (16 MB versus 24 MB) does not seem to hold it back in memory-adjacent tests such as random string sorting, where it leads by 12.1 percent, likely helped by the 89.6 GB/s DDR5 memory subsystem.

The Radeon 760M integrated graphics on the AMD side is a more modern pairing than the UHD Graphics on the Intel side, worth noting for systems without a discrete GPU. The PRO branding on the AMD part also signals business-oriented features such as the ECC support noted above.

Where Each One Wins

Choose the Intel Core i7-12650H for workloads that reward raw thread count and throughput: physics simulation, floating point and integer math, prime number computation, data compression, and general multithreaded Passmark performance. It also makes sense where DDR4 support is needed or where its socket and platform are already in place. Its wins in find prime numbers (28.2 percent), floating point (27.7 percent), and physics (37.1 percent) are among the largest in this comparison.

Choose the Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS for sustained rendering and modern applications. The R23 multi-core result alone, 33.3 percent ahead, makes it the pick for content creation, while the single-core advantage of 31 percent benefits any lightly threaded software. It is also the better fit for thin-and-light designs given the 28 watt TDP, for business deployments needing ECC memory, and for instruction-heavy workloads like encryption (6.2 percent ahead) and extended instructions (16.6 percent ahead). String sorting and general memory-sensitive work tilt its way as well.

The brief-burst tests (R15 and R20 multi-core, R20 single-core) show the two within roughly a point of each other, so for short, snappy tasks either chip serves. The divergence appears when the runtime lengthens, and that is where the data points clearly: Alder Lake for legacy-flavored multi-core muscle, Zen 4 for modern efficiency and sustained speed.