AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors cleanly by workload type. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 12 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench rendering test and the majority of PassMark compute workloads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 takes 3 wins, all in PassMark data-handling and integer tasks. For users prioritizing rendering, encryption, physics simulation, or single-thread responsiveness, the Intel part is the clear choice from the recorded measurements. The AMD chip remains competitive specifically for integer-heavy math, data compression, and random string sorting workloads, where it leads by margins from 5.2% to 41%. The data shows the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H as the broader performer, with the AMD Ryzen 7 250 serving a narrower but real niche.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different foundries and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses TSMC's 4 nm process with Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel's own 3 nm node with Panther Lake architecture. The AMD chip packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die; the Intel database entry does not list transistor count or die size.

Core configuration differs substantially. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part relies on more physical cores without simultaneous multithreading, whereas AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count from 8 to 16. Cache layouts also diverge. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel allocates 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3, giving it a larger L3 pool overall.

Memory support differs by type and bandwidth. The AMD processor supports DDR5 with dual-channel access and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel processor supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, a 52% advantage in the recorded memory throughput figure. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with AMD using Radeon 780M and Intel using Arc B370. Both chips are mobile parts with active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part uses the FP8 socket; the Intel part uses BGA 2540. Release dates sit roughly a year apart, with AMD dated January 2025 and Intel dated January 2026.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H dominates in rendering and synthetic compute. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 16331 against 14676 for AMD, a 10.1% margin. Single-core Cinebench R23 shows an even larger gap: 2044 versus 1715, a 16.1% lead. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15, where Intel leads by 8.1% multi-core and 11.8% single-core. PassMark results reinforce the Intel advantage in floating-point work, physics, encryption, extended instructions, and prime number finding. The floating-point math gap is particularly wide at 36.6%, and the physics gap reaches 57.5%.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins in integer math by a decisive 41%, scoring 91565 against 64934. It also leads in data compression with 300708 versus 276539, an 8.7% margin, and in random string sorting with 35861 versus 34082, a 5.2% margin. These three wins cluster around data manipulation tasks rather than raw arithmetic throughput.

The percentile rankings place the AMD part at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the 84th percentile. The AMD chip's average benchmark score of 38221 exceeds the Intel chip's 33989, which reflects the AMD part's strength in the specific PassMark workloads included in the average. However, the head-to-head comparison table shows Intel winning the majority of individual tests. The two processors' nearest rivals also reveal different competitive neighborhoods. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, Intel Core i5-13600HX, Intel Core i5-14490F, and Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H sits within 0.7% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, Intel Core i7-12800HX, Intel Xeon 6353P, and AMD EPYC 4244P.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. It scores 16331 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 14676 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 10.1% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel leads 2504 to 2302, an 8.1% margin.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 7 250 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins 3 of the 15 head-to-head tests. It leads in PassMark integer math by 41% (91565 versus 64934), data compression by 8.7% (300708 versus 276539), and random string sorting by 5.2% (35861 versus 34082).

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H leads in every recorded single-thread test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2044 versus 1715, a 16.1% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 305 versus 269, an 11.8% margin. PassMark single-thread shows 4180 versus 3678, a 12% margin.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores but only 12 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD processor uses simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel processor does not.

Q: Is the memory bandwidth different between the two?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the biggest single-test margins in either direction?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250's largest win is PassMark integer math at 41%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's largest win is PassMark find prime numbers at 76% (304 versus 73), followed by physics at 57.5% (2697 versus 1147).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes the Cinebench suite outright. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 16331 against AMD's 14676, a 10.1% lead. The single-core gap is steeper at 16.1%, with Intel at 2044 and AMD at 1715. Cinebench R15 shows a similar pattern: Intel wins multi-core 2504 to 2302 (8.1%) and single-core 305 to 269 (11.8%). These results indicate that Intel holds the advantage in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark results split into two clusters. Intel wins the compute-heavy tests. Floating-point math goes to Intel by 36.6%, with scores of 84067 versus 53285. Physics goes to Intel by 57.5%, at 2697 versus 1147. Data encryption favors Intel by 17.3%, at 21367 versus 17661. Extended instructions favor Intel by 9.6%, at 23906 versus 21613. Prime number finding shows the largest Intel margin of the entire comparison: 304 versus 73, a 76% lead. Multithread performance also favors Intel by 12.6%, at 28717 versus 25089.

AMD wins the data-oriented PassMark tests. Integer math is the standout, with AMD scoring 91565 against Intel's 64934, a 41% lead. Data compression goes to AMD at 300708 versus 276539, an 8.7% margin. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 35861 versus 34082, a 5.2% margin. These three wins share a common theme: they involve moving, compressing, or sorting data rather than sustained arithmetic or physics computation.

The overall win count reflects this split. Intel wins 12 tests, AMD wins 3. The average benchmark scores in the database, however, tell a different story: AMD's average of 38221 exceeds Intel's 33989. This apparent contradiction stems from the weighting of the average score, which includes the AMD part's strong integer and compression results. The head-to-head table, by contrast, gives equal weight to each test and shows Intel's broader dominance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses 8 cores and 16 threads; the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses 12 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ sharply: AMD runs at 3.30 GHz, Intel at 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with AMD at 5.10 GHz and Intel at 4.70 GHz. TDP ratings are close, with AMD at 28 W and Intel at 25 W.

Process node and foundry differ. AMD uses a 4 nm TSMC process; Intel uses a 3 nm Intel process. The AMD die measures 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors; the Intel die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ at every level. AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core; Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core. AMD provides 1 MB L2 per core; Intel provides 2.5 MB L2 per core. AMD provides 16 MB shared L3; Intel provides 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support and bandwidth differ. AMD supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s; Intel supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s. Both use dual-channel buses, and neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ, with AMD using Radeon 780M and Intel using Arc B370. Sockets differ: AMD uses FP8, Intel uses BGA 2540. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are mobile parts with active production status. The database does not list a launch MSRP for either chip.