AMD Ryzen 7 1700 vs Intel Core i5-8300H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 and Intel Core i5-8300H occupy the same percentile rank among all CPUs, yet they are fundamentally different designs. The Ryzen 7 1700 is an 8-core, 16-thread desktop processor built on the Zen architecture, while the Core i5-8300H is a 4-core, 8-thread mobile chip based on Coffee Lake. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—2015 for the AMD part versus 2005 for the Intel part—but the distribution of those scores tells a clearer story about workload suitability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen 7 1700 dominates the multi-threaded tests with decisive margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD chip scores 1414 against the Intel chip’s 629, a staggering 124.8% advantage. That is more than double the raw rendering throughput, reflecting the Ryzen’s doubling of cores and threads. The Geekbench multi-core result follows the same pattern: 5475 for the Ryzen 7 1700 versus 3920 for the Core i5-8300H, a 39.7% lead. These are not marginal wins; they represent a generational gap in parallel compute capacity.

The single-core picture is more nuanced. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen 7 1700 still wins, scoring 147 against Intel’s 88—a 67% advantage. This is surprising given the Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus the AMD’s 3.70 GHz. However, Geekbench single-core flips the result: the Core i5-8300H scores 1286, beating the Ryzen’s 1023 by 20.5%. This divergence suggests the two benchmarks stress different aspects of the microarchitecture, with Geekbench favoring Intel’s newer Coffee Lake core design while Cinebench R15 leans on the AMD’s raw integer throughput.

Across the four head-to-head tests, the Ryzen 7 1700 wins three, with the only Intel victory coming in Geekbench single-core. The average benchmark scores place the two chips within 0.5% of each other—the AMD at 2015 and the Intel at 2005—but that average masks the extreme variance. The Ryzen’s wins are often huge, while the Intel’s single win is comparatively modest in absolute terms.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference is core count. The Ryzen 7 1700 packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i5-8300H offers 4 cores and 8 threads. This doubling defines their multi-threaded performance envelope. Both chips are built on a 14 nm process, but the foundries differ: GlobalFoundries produces the AMD die, while Intel fabricates its own. The Ryzen’s die is substantially larger at 213 mm² versus Intel’s 126 mm², and the AMD part contains 4,800 million transistors compared to unspecified transistor count for Intel.

Cache hierarchies also diverge significantly. The Ryzen 7 1700 allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB L3 pool. The Core i5-8300H uses 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a shared 12 MB L3. The AMD part’s larger per-core caches and bigger L3 pool give it more headroom for data-intensive workloads, though the Intel chip’s smaller footprint may reduce latency in some access patterns.

Memory support differs as well. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen 7 1700 features dual-channel memory with a rated bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Intel chip’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified. The AMD processor also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Intel part. PCIe connectivity is only listed for the AMD side: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Platform and power profiles are starkly different. The Ryzen 7 1700 uses the desktop AMD Socket AM4 with a 65W TDP, while the Core i5-8300H is a mobile part soldered to Intel BGA 1440 with a 45W TDP. The Intel chip includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD 630, whereas the AMD part has no integrated graphics listed. The AMD multiplier is unlocked for overclocking; the Intel multiplier is locked. Production status also differs: the Ryzen 7 1700 remains active, while the Core i5-8300H is end-of-life.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split along workload lines. For any multi-threaded task, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the overwhelming choice. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core lead of 124.8% and Geekbench multi-core lead of 39.7% are too large to ignore. If the workload is parallel—rendering, compiling, scientific computing—the AMD chip is categorically superior.

The Intel Core i5-8300H wins only in Geekbench single-core, where it leads by 20.5%. That suggests an advantage in lightly threaded applications that rely on per-core efficiency, but the margin is small compared to the AMD’s multi-core dominance. The Intel chip’s higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz helps in bursty single-thread tasks, but the Ryzen 7 1700’s 3.70 GHz boost is close enough to keep Cinebench R15 single-core in AMD’s favor.

The market segments explain the design choices. The Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor with a 65W TDP, unlocked multiplier, and ECC support—features aimed at enthusiasts and workstation users. The Core i5-8300H is a 45W mobile chip with integrated graphics, designed for laptops where power efficiency and compactness matter. These are not direct competitors in the same chassis, but the benchmark data shows that the desktop AMD part offers dramatically more multi-threaded performance for its power envelope.

For users who prioritize raw parallel throughput, the Ryzen 7 1700 is the only rational choice. For those constrained to a mobile platform, the Core i5-8300H offers competitive single-core performance but falls far behind in multi-threaded work. The average benchmark scores being nearly equal is misleading—the Ryzen 7 1700’s wins are lopsided, while the Intel chip’s single victory is comparatively narrow.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i5-8300H has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The Ryzen 7 1700 scores 1414 versus the Core i5-8300H’s 629, giving the AMD chip a 124.8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-8300H win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench single-core with a score of 1286, beating the Ryzen 7 1700’s 1023 by 20.5%.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Ryzen 7 1700 has a 65W TDP, while the Core i5-8300H has a 45W TDP.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, only the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 supports ECC memory; the Intel Core i5-8300H does not.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-8300H includes UHD 630 integrated graphics, while the AMD Ryzen 7 1700 has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 1700 wins decisively in multi-threaded workloads. Its Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 1414 is more than double the Intel’s 629, and its Geekbench multi-core score of 5475 is 39.7% higher. This translates directly to faster rendering, video encoding, and any workload that can utilize 16 threads. The larger 16 MB L3 cache and 512 KB per-core L2 also benefit data-heavy parallel tasks. The 65W TDP is higher than the Intel’s 45W, but for desktop users this is a non-issue, and the unlocked multiplier allows further tuning.

The Intel Core i5-8300H wins in Geekbench single-core, scoring 1286 versus the AMD’s 1023. This indicates better per-thread performance in that specific benchmark, likely due to the higher 3.90 GHz boost clock and the newer Coffee Lake architecture. The presence of UHD 630 integrated graphics gives it an edge for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU, which is critical for mobile designs. Its lower 45W TDP and BGA socket make it suitable for compact laptops where the AMD desktop part cannot physically fit.

The Ryzen 7 1700’s 147 Cinebench R15 single-core score still beats the Intel’s 88, so the Intel advantage is not universal across all single-thread tests. The data suggests the Ryzen 7 1700 is the superior processor for anyone who values multi-threaded performance, while the Core i5-8300H makes sense only for mobile users who need integrated graphics and can accept a massive multi-core deficit. The 0.5% average score difference between the two is statistically negligible, but the workload-specific gaps are anything but.