AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT vs Intel Core i9-9980HK Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database paints a remarkably one-sided picture. Across the four shared benchmark tests, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT wins every single contest, and the margins are substantial. This is not a case of incremental gains; the differences are large enough to define the entire comparison.

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Intel Core i9-9980HK scores 1193, while the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT reaches 2230. That is a delta of -46.5% from Intel's perspective, meaning the AMD part is roughly 87% faster in this specific workload. For a database entry, that is a crushing multi-threaded defeat. The single-core version of the same test narrows the gap but still favors AMD: 168 for Intel versus 219 for AMD, a -23.3% delta. In percentage terms, the AMD chip is about 30% ahead in Cinebench R15 single-core, a notable edge for a desktop part against a mobile processor.

Geekbench results follow the same trajectory. In multi-core, the Ryzen 7 3800XT scores 8561 against Intel's 6687, a -21.9% delta. The single-core Geekbench test shows 1773 for AMD versus 1389 for Intel, a -21.7% delta. These are consistent, wide margins across both major benchmark suites. The data does not show a single test where the Intel chip pulls ahead; its best relative performance is in Geekbench multi-core, where the gap is still roughly 28% in favor of AMD.

The database also records the average benchmark scores for both parts, which put them on nearly equal footing overall despite the lopsided head-to-head. The Intel i9-9980HK has an average benchmark score of 3577, while the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT sits at 3515. This apparent contradiction stems from the different benchmark suites recorded for each chip; the Intel part's average includes its Cinebench R20 and R23 results, which are not present in the AMD's head-to-head set. The nearest rivals for each reinforce this odd parity: Intel's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C at 3579 (-0.1%), while AMD's nearest rival is the Intel Atom x7213RE at 3520 (-0.1%). Both chips land at the 55th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy similar positions in the overall distribution, yet the direct comparisons show AMD's desktop part is clearly the stronger performer.

Where Each One Wins

Based solely on the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT wins every category. There is no workload in the shared test set where the Intel Core i9-9980HK comes out ahead. That said, the use-case split is not merely about raw score totals; it is about the nature of the platforms. The Intel chip is a mobile processor, and its wins, if any, would be contextual rather than benchmark-based.

For multi-threaded rendering, the AMD part is the clear choice. Cinebench R15 multi-core at 2230 versus 1193 shows a massive advantage for video encoding, 3D rendering, and any heavily parallel task. The Geekbench multi-core result, 8561 versus 6687, reinforces this for general productivity workloads that scale across cores. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration is identical on both sides, so the difference comes down to clock speeds, architecture efficiency, and memory bandwidth, all of which favor the AMD part in this comparison.

For single-threaded responsiveness, AMD also wins, though by a smaller margin. Cinebench R15 single-core at 219 versus 168 and Geekbench single-core at 1773 versus 1389 both point to faster per-core performance. This affects everyday tasks like web browsing, office applications, and legacy software that rely on one or two threads. The AMD chip's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz, even with a lower boost of 4.70 GHz compared to Intel's 5.00 GHz, appears to deliver better real-world single-thread results in these tests.

The Intel chip's domain is its mobile form factor. With a TDP of 45 watts versus AMD's 105 watts, it is designed for laptops where power and thermal limits are strict. The database shows no benchmark wins for Intel, but the data also shows a mobile market segment versus a desktop segment. For users who need a processor in a thin laptop, the Intel part exists, whereas the AMD part does not fit that use case at all. The Intel chip also includes integrated graphics (UHD 630), which the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT lacks, meaning the Intel can power a display without a discrete GPU, a critical feature for portable systems.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The Intel Core i9-9980HK is built on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-HR refresh, using a 14 nm process node fabricated by Intel itself. The die size is recorded at 149 mm². The AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT uses Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Matisse 2, on a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with a much smaller die size of 74 mm². The transistor count for the AMD chip is listed as 3,800 million; no transistor count is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the L2 cache doubles on the AMD side: 512 KB per core versus 256 KB per core on Intel. The L3 cache is also doubled, with AMD offering 32 MB shared versus Intel's 16 MB shared. This larger cache hierarchy gives the Ryzen 7 3800XT a substantial advantage in data-heavy workloads, as more data can reside closer to the cores.

Memory bandwidth is another point of divergence. The Intel chip has a recorded memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the AMD part reaches 51.2 GB/s. Both support DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode, but the higher bandwidth on the AMD side likely contributes to its multi-core benchmark dominance. PCIe generation also differs: Intel supports Gen 3, while AMD supports Gen 4, doubling the available interconnect bandwidth for GPUs and NVMe drives. This matters for desktop users who want the fastest storage and graphics interfaces.

The AMD chip has no integrated graphics, while the Intel chip includes UHD 630. This is a fundamental architectural choice: AMD's desktop part assumes a discrete GPU, while Intel's mobile part must be self-sufficient for display output. The sockets reflect this as well, with Intel using BGA 1440 (soldered, non-upgradeable) and AMD using Socket AM4 (socketed, upgradeable). The production status also differs: Intel's chip is end-of-life, while AMD's is still active.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: 8 cores and 16 threads for both. The key specification differences lie in clocks, power, and platform details. The Intel base clock is 2.40 GHz, significantly lower than AMD's 3.80 GHz. The boost clocks are closer: Intel boosts to 5.00 GHz, which is higher than AMD's 4.70 GHz. Despite Intel's higher boost, the AMD chip wins all single-thread tests, suggesting the lower base clock and mobile power limits hamper Intel's sustained performance.

TDP is a major differentiator: Intel is rated at 45 watts, AMD at 105 watts. This is not merely a power consumption figure; it explains the benchmark results. A 45-watt mobile part cannot maintain high clocks under load as effectively as a 105-watt desktop part. The Intel chip's lower base clock is a direct consequence of its thermal envelope.

Memory bandwidth differs at 42.7 GB/s for Intel versus 51.2 GB/s for AMD. PCIe generation differs at Gen 3 versus Gen 4. The AMD chip has a larger L2 cache (512 KB per core) and L3 cache (32 MB) versus Intel's 256 KB per core and 16 MB. The Intel chip includes integrated graphics; the AMD chip does not. The release dates differ: Intel launched on 2019-04-22, AMD on 2020-07-06. The AMD chip has a launch MSRP of $399, which is recorded in the database; the Intel chip has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have unlocked multipliers, so overclocking is theoretically possible on both platforms, though the mobile Intel chip's thermal constraints limit practical headroom.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-9980HK boosts to 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT's 4.70 GHz. However, the AMD chip still wins all recorded single-core benchmark tests.

Q: Do both processors have the same core count?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads. The benchmark differences are not due to core count but rather to architecture, clocks, cache, and memory bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT has 32 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel Core i9-9980HK has 16 MB. The AMD chip also has double the L2 cache per core.

Q: Is the Intel chip suitable for a desktop build?

A: No, the Intel Core i9-9980HK uses Intel BGA 1440, which is a soldered mobile socket. The AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT uses AMD Socket AM4, which is a standard desktop socket.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 4?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT supports PCIe Gen 4, while the Intel Core i9-9980HK is limited to PCIe Gen 3.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel chip has a TDP of 45 watts, while the AMD chip has a TDP of 105 watts. This reflects the Intel part's mobile design versus the AMD part's desktop design.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT wins all four recorded head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from -21.7% to -46.5% in Intel's disfavor. In multi-threaded workloads, the AMD part is roughly 87% faster in Cinebench R15 multi-core and about 28% faster in Geekbench multi-core. In single-threaded tests, the AMD chip is about 30% faster in Cinebench R15 and roughly 28% faster in Geekbench. There is no recorded benchmark where the Intel chip takes the lead.

The choice, therefore, depends entirely on platform needs. For a desktop user who wants maximum performance in rendering, productivity, and general computing, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT is the data-backed pick. Its larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 4 support, and superior benchmark scores make it the stronger processor in every measured dimension. The 105-watt TDP is a non-issue for a desktop system with adequate cooling.

For a mobile user, the Intel Core i9-9980HK is the only viable option between these two, simply because it is a mobile processor. It fits in a laptop, includes integrated graphics for display output, and operates within a 45-watt envelope. The data shows it is slower in every benchmark, but the data also shows it serves a different market segment. If portability is the requirement, the Intel chip is the answer, despite its performance deficit. If performance is the requirement, the AMD chip is the clear and only choice based on the recorded measurements.