AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS vs Intel Core i5-13600H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS and the Intel Core i5-13600H are both 45-watt mobile processors aimed at high-performance laptops, yet they achieve their performance through fundamentally different designs. The data reveals a fascinating split: the AMD chip dominates in rendering and single-threaded workloads, while the Intel chip fights back in specific math and physics tasks. This comparison walks through their architectural choices, benchmark results, and the practical implications for different types of users.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS wins decisively, scoring 19742 against the Intel Core i5-13600H's 12402. That is a 59.2% advantage in the AMD chip's favor, making it the clear choice for heavy multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-13600H wins 5 out of 17 head-to-head tests. Its biggest victories are in PassMark floating point math (57618 vs 45481, a 21.1% lead) and physics (1490 vs 1208, an 18.9% lead), along with wins in data compression, prime number finding, and integer math.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2787 versus 1750, a 59.3% advantage. PassMark single-thread results show a smaller but still significant lead: 3858 versus 3631, which is 6.3% higher.

Q: What are their overall average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has an average benchmark score of 30879, while the Intel Core i5-13600H scores 30548. Both sit at the 82nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are nearly identical in overall standing despite their differing strengths.

Q: Do they support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS supports only DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core i5-13600H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-13600H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having half the core count, the AMD chip still wins most multi-threaded tests, suggesting its Zen 4 architecture is highly efficient per core.

Architecture Differences

The foundational design philosophies diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node with the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-13600H uses Intel's 10 nm node with the Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-H. This process difference likely explains much of the performance-per-watt disparity seen in the benchmarks.

Core configurations tell a story of different strategies. AMD uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel deploys 12 cores and 16 threads — a hybrid setup common to Raptor Lake. Intel's L1 cache is 80 KB per core, larger than AMD's 64 KB per core, and its L2 cache is 2 MB per core versus AMD's 1 MB. However, AMD's L3 cache is 16 MB shared, slightly smaller than Intel's 18 MB shared. These cache differences influence the specific benchmark wins, particularly in integer and floating-point math where Intel excels.

Integrated graphics differ as well. AMD pairs the CPU with Radeon 760M graphics, while Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. Memory support is another differentiator: AMD is DDR5-only with ECC support enabled, whereas Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 but lacks ECC. PCIe capabilities also vary, with AMD offering Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Intel's Gen 5 with 8 lanes. Both have locked multipliers, and both target the mobile market segment with 45 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is AMD's complete dominance in Cinebench tests. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks, the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS wins by margins between 59.1% and 59.3%. For instance, in Cinebench R20 multi-core, AMD scores 8291 against Intel's 5208, and in R15 single-core, it posts 280 versus 176. These are not narrow victories; they are overwhelming leads that suggest the Zen 4 architecture extracts far more work from each clock cycle.

The PassMark suite paints a more nuanced picture. AMD wins in data encryption (17387 vs 16061, an 8.3% lead), extended instructions (21212 vs 15817, a 34.1% lead), multi-thread performance (23569 vs 23304, a 1.1% edge), and random string sorting (35472 vs 29570, a 20% margin). The extended instructions result is particularly telling, indicating better SIMD and vector processing capabilities.

Intel's counterattacks come in specific workloads. The floating-point math score of 57618 versus 45481 is a 21.1% win, and physics at 1490 versus 1208 is an 18.9% victory. Data compression is nearly a tie, with Intel edging ahead at 267936 versus 265826, a mere 0.8% difference. Prime number finding goes to Intel at 87 versus 73 (16.1% lead), and integer math shows Intel ahead at 78658 versus 72740 (7.5% lead). These wins suggest Intel's hybrid core design handles certain parallel math workloads better despite losing the overall multi-thread race.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious differentiator: 6 cores and 12 threads for AMD versus 12 cores and 16 threads for Intel. Clock speeds also differ, with AMD's base clock at 4.30 GHz and boost at 5.00 GHz, while Intel runs at 2.80 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD chip's higher clocks, despite fewer cores, explain its single-core dominance.

Process technology and foundry are distinct: AMD uses TSMC's 4 nm node, while Intel uses its own 10 nm process. AMD lists 25,000 million transistors and a 178 mm² die size; Intel's transistor count and die size are not provided. Cache hierarchies differ in per-core allocation, with Intel having larger L1 and L2 caches but a slightly larger shared L3 (18 MB vs 16 MB).

Memory support is a key split: AMD supports only DDR5 with ECC, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5 without ECC. Memory bandwidth is listed for AMD at 89.6 GB/s, but not for Intel. PCIe generation differs (Gen 4 for AMD, Gen 5 for Intel), as do lane counts (20 for AMD, 8 for Intel). The integrated GPUs are different models, and the sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FP7 versus Intel BGA 1744.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most users: the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS. It wins 12 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, and its average benchmark score of 30879 is higher than Intel's 30548. The AMD chip's 59%+ lead in rendering workloads is enormous, and its single-thread advantage carries over to everyday responsiveness. For anyone prioritizing CPU rendering, video encoding, or general productivity, the Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the stronger choice.

The Intel Core i5-13600H is not without merit, but its wins are concentrated in specific math-heavy tasks. The 21.1% lead in floating-point math and 18.9% lead in physics could matter for scientific computing or certain simulation workloads. Its larger core count (12 vs 6) might also be attractive for highly parallel integer tasks, where it holds a 7.5% advantage. However, the overall benchmark average is lower, and it loses the multi-thread race despite having twice the physical cores.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS is the pick for rendering, 3D modeling, and video editing. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 19742 versus 12402 is a 59.2% improvement that will directly translate to faster render times. It also wins in single-thread tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light coding, with a 6.3% PassMark single-thread lead. The 34.1% advantage in extended instructions benefits workloads using AVX-512 or similar vectorized code, and the 20% lead in random string sorting helps with data processing and database tasks.

Intel Core i5-13600H is better suited for scientific simulations, physics engines, and financial modeling. The floating-point math score of 57618 versus 45481 is a 21.1% win that matters for numerical analysis. Its 18.9% lead in physics benchmarks indicates strength in rigid-body dynamics and particle simulations. The 16.1% edge in prime number finding points to better performance in cryptography-related tasks, and the 7.5% integer math lead helps with general arithmetic-heavy code. Data compression is essentially a tie, so archiving tasks will run similarly on both.