AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs Intel Core i3-10325 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS and Intel Core i3-10325 occupy the same average benchmark tier, but they arrive there through entirely different designs. The Ryzen 7 4800HS is a mobile 8-core/16-thread part built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the Core i3-10325 is a desktop 4-core/8-thread part on Intel's 14 nm node. Their average scores of 2557 and 2530, respectively, place them within 1.1% of each other, yet the head-to-head data reveals a stark performance gap in the tests where they directly compete.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, taking 2 wins to 0 for the Intel Core i3-10325. This means in the shared test suite, the Ryzen 7 4800HS holds every advantage. The Intel Core i3-10325's sole claim to relevance is its average benchmark score of 2530, which trails the Ryzen 7 4800HS's 2557 by a slim 1.1% margin in the aggregate metric.

The Ryzen 7 4800HS excels in multicore workloads, which aligns with its doubled core and thread counts. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1700.5 demonstrates a massive lead over the Core i3-10325's 881, a 93% difference. Even in single-core performance, where the Intel part's higher 4.70 GHz boost clock might suggest an advantage, the Ryzen 7 4800HS still wins with a 186.5 score versus 124, a 50.4% delta.

For the Core i3-10325, the analytical picture is narrower. Its Cinebench R20 and R23 results—3673 multicore, 518 single-core, and 8747 multicore, 1234 single-core, respectively—show a capable desktop processor, but these tests lack direct Ryzen 7 4800HS comparisons in the data. The i3-10325's 4 cores and 8 threads are simply outmatched when both chips run the same benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference lies in core count and process technology. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i3-10325 offers 4 cores and 8 threads. This 2x core advantage drives the Ryzen's multicore dominance. The Ryzen 7 4800HS uses AMD's Zen 2 architecture on the Renoir codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC with 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die. The Core i3-10325 uses Intel's Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process, with transistor count and die size not listed in the data.

Cache configurations show a split. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 per core and 8 MB of shared L3, but the Ryzen 7 4800HS has 512 KB of L2 per core versus the Core i3-10325's 256 KB per core. This higher per-core L2 capacity can reduce latency for frequently accessed data. Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD part: 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s, both on dual-channel buses. The Ryzen 7 4800HS supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory, while the Core i3-10325 supports only DDR4.

Platform and sockets differ completely. The Ryzen 7 4800HS uses AMD Socket FP6 and targets the mobile market segment, while the Core i3-10325 uses Intel Socket 1200 for desktop systems. Power envelopes reflect this: the Ryzen 7 4800HS has a 45 W TDP compared to the Core i3-10325's 65 W TDP, meaning the AMD part delivers more performance at a lower rated power draw. Both chips have unlocked multipliers disabled, and neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen 7 4800HS features Radeon Graphics with 448 shader processors, while the Core i3-10325 has UHD Graphics 630. Both use PCIe Gen 3, though the Intel part specifies 16 lanes for the CPU, while the AMD part lists no lane count. Clock speeds show the Intel chip with higher base and boost clocks—3.90 GHz and 4.70 GHz versus 2.90 GHz and 4.20 GHz—but this does not translate into benchmark wins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two chips share only two benchmark results, both from Cinebench R15. The multicore test delivers the most dramatic separation. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 1700.5, while the Intel Core i3-10325 scores 881. This 93% delta means the Ryzen 7 4800HS nearly doubles the Intel part's throughput. The 8-core/16-thread configuration crushes the 4-core/8-thread design in fully threaded workloads.

The single-core test is closer in percentage terms but still clearly favors AMD. The Ryzen 7 4800HS scores 186.5, against the Core i3-10325's 124, a 50.4% advantage. This result is notable because the Intel chip runs at higher clock speeds—4.70 GHz boost versus 4.20 GHz—yet still loses by half. The Zen 2 architecture's instructions-per-clock advantage likely explains this outcome, though the data does not specify IPC figures.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark, both chips sit in a tight cluster. The Ryzen 7 4800HS's 2557 average is just 0.3% above the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3's 2550 and 0.5% above the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3's 2545. It trails the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS's 2573 by 0.6%. The Core i3-10325's 2530 average is 0.1% above the Intel Xeon E-2244G's 2527 and 0.7% above the Intel Xeon E-2144G's 2514, while sitting 0.6% below the Xeon E5-1650 v3 and 0.8% below the Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3's 2511. These sub-1% deltas place both parts in the 49th percentile of all CPUs, indicating middle-of-the-road performance overall.

The Ryzen 7 4800HS's Cinebench R15 wins align with its 49th percentile ranking, but the magnitude of the head-to-head deltas—93% and 50.4%—suggests the average score metric masks the true performance disparity in specific workloads. The Intel Core i3-10325's additional Cinebench R20 and R23 results, which have no AMD counterpart in the data, cannot offset the direct comparison losses.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multicore rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS dominates with a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1700.5 versus the Intel Core i3-10325's 881, a 93% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-10325 win any benchmark against the Ryzen 7 4800HS?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS winning both shared tests—Cinebench R15 multicore and single-core—with the Intel part taking zero wins.

Q: Why does the Intel chip lose single-core despite higher clocks?

A: The Core i3-10325 has a 4.70 GHz boost clock versus the Ryzen 7 4800HS's 4.20 GHz, yet the AMD part scores 186.5 to 124 in Cinebench R15 single-core, a 50.4% lead. The Zen 2 architecture delivers higher instructions-per-clock efficiency.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i3-10325 offers 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has a 45 W TDP, lower than the Intel Core i3-10325's 65 W TDP, while delivering higher performance in shared benchmarks.

Q: Do these processors have similar average performance?

A: Yes, their average benchmark scores are close: the Ryzen 7 4800HS averages 2557 and the Core i3-10325 averages 2530, a 1.1% difference in favor of AMD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture for users choosing between these two. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is the superior processor in every direct comparison available. Its Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1700.5 crushes the Core i3-10325's 881, making it the obvious pick for multithreaded workloads like video rendering, compilation, or any task that scales across cores. The 50.4% single-core lead further cements its position, showing the Zen 2 architecture overcomes the Intel chip's higher clock speeds.

The Intel Core i3-10325's case rests on its aggregate average score of 2530, which is only 1.1% below the Ryzen 7 4800HS's 2557. This near-parity in the overall metric suggests that in workloads not covered by the shared Cinebench R15 tests, the Intel part may be competitive. Its Cinebench R20 multicore score of 3673 and R23 multicore score of 8747 indicate respectable desktop performance, though without AMD equivalents in the data, these cannot be compared directly.

For a mobile user, the Ryzen 7 4800HS is the clear choice. It delivers double the cores and threads, higher memory bandwidth, and a lower 45 W TDP, all within the mobile market segment. The Core i3-10325, with its 65 W TDP and desktop socket, targets stationary builds. The data shows no scenario where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part in a shared test. The Ryzen 7 4800HS's launch MSRP is not listed, while the Core i3-10325 has a launch MSRP of $154, but performance metrics take precedence in this comparison.

The verdict is straightforward: select the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS for any workload where benchmark performance matters, as it wins every head-to-head test with substantial margins. The Intel Core i3-10325 remains a functional desktop processor, but the available data offers no benchmark result where it beats the Ryzen 7 4800HS. Users prioritizing multicore throughput, single-core speed, or power efficiency should choose the AMD part without hesitation based on these figures.