AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS vs Intel Core i5-9500T Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins every single head-to-head test in the database. Out of four shared benchmarks, the AMD part takes all four. The Intel Core i5-9500T does not record a single victory in any test where both processors have scores.

That does not mean the Intel chip has no role. The i5-9500T is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP, while the 4800HS is a mobile part rated at 45 W. If you are building a low-power desktop system where the CPU sits in a Socket 1151 board, the Intel part is the one that fits. The AMD chip requires an AMD Socket FP6 board, which is a mobile platform. The data shows the AMD part is faster in every measured workload, but the Intel part is the only one of the two that belongs in a standard desktop socket.

For multi-threaded workloads, the AMD chip is in a different class. The Cinebench R15 multicore score of 1700.5 against 832 is a 104.4% advantage. That is not a small gap; it is a doubling of performance. The Geekbench multicore result tells the same story: 7019 versus 4407, a 59.3% lead. If your work scales across cores, the 4800HS is the clear choice.

Single-threaded performance is closer, but the AMD chip still leads. The Geekbench singlecore score of 1320 versus 1198 is a 10.2% advantage. The Cinebench R15 singlecore score of 186.5 versus 117 is a 59.4% lead, which is a much larger gap than the Geekbench result suggests. The AMD part wins both, but the margin varies heavily depending on the test.

The Intel part does have one practical advantage: it is a desktop chip with a 35 W TDP. That means it can be cooled by a modest air cooler in a standard desktop case. The AMD part is a mobile chip, so it is designed for laptops or mini-PCs with the FP6 socket. If you already own a Socket 1151 motherboard, the i5-9500T is the drop-in option. If you are choosing a platform from scratch, the benchmark data points firmly to the AMD side.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i5-9500T uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process from Intel. That process gap is a major reason for the performance difference: the AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller area, with 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die. The Intel chip has no transistor or die size figures recorded in the database.

Core counts differ significantly. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD chip supports simultaneous multithreading, so each core can handle two threads. The Intel chip does not, so its 6 cores handle exactly 6 threads. That is a 10-thread versus 6-thread difference in raw thread count, which explains the massive multicore performance gap.

Cache layouts also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 512 KB per core on the AMD chip versus 256 KB per core on the Intel chip. The L3 cache is 8 MB shared on the AMD part versus 9 MB shared on the Intel part. So the Intel chip has slightly more L3, but the AMD chip has twice as much L2 per core. The total cache picture favors the AMD part for per-core working sets, while the Intel part has a small L3 advantage.

Memory support is another split. The AMD chip supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory, while the Intel chip supports DDR4 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus. The AMD chip has a higher memory bandwidth rating at 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the Intel part. Neither supports ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD chip has Radeon Graphics with 448 shader processors. The Intel chip has UHD Graphics 630. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the comparison is limited to the spec sheet. The AMD part has a higher shader count, which typically indicates stronger iGPU performance, but no measured data is available here.

The AMD chip is built for mobile, using the FP6 socket. The Intel chip is a desktop part using Socket 1151. The AMD part is still in active production, while the Intel part is marked as end-of-life. The AMD chip was released in January 2020, while the Intel chip was released in March 2018. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $192, which is the only pricing data in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD chip comes in Cinebench R15 multicore. The 4800HS scores 1700.5, while the i5-9500T scores 832. That is a 104.4% delta, meaning the AMD chip is more than twice as fast. This is the clearest signal in the entire dataset: for heavily threaded workloads like video rendering or 3D modeling, the AMD part is in a different league.

The Geekbench multicore test shows a similar but slightly smaller gap. The AMD chip scores 7019, the Intel chip scores 4407, for a 59.3% delta. This confirms the multicore trend across two different benchmark suites. The AMD chip's 8 cores with 16 threads simply outmuscle the Intel chip's 6 cores with 6 threads.

Single-core results are more interesting because they isolate per-thread performance. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, the AMD chip scores 186.5 versus 117 for the Intel chip, a 59.4% delta. That is a surprisingly large single-thread gap, given that both chips are from the same era. The Zen 2 architecture at 7 nm appears to have a significant per-core advantage over Coffee Lake at 14 nm.

The Geekbench singlecore test tells a different story. The AMD chip scores 1320, the Intel chip scores 1198, for a 10.2% delta. This is the closest result in the entire head-to-head set. The AMD chip still wins, but the margin is modest. The difference between the two single-core tests likely reflects different workload characteristics: Cinebench R15 singlecore may favor the AMD chip's higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, while Geekbench singlecore may be less sensitive to clock speed.

The average benchmark score in the database puts the AMD chip at 2557 and the Intel chip at 2493. That is a 2.6% difference in the aggregate, which is much smaller than the individual test deltas. The average is pulled by the fact that the Intel chip has more recorded benchmarks, including Cinebench R20 and R23 results that the AMD chip does not have. The AMD chip's average is based on four tests, while the Intel chip's average is based on eight tests.

The percentile rankings are identical: both chips sit at the 49th percentile of all CPUs in the database. That means both are roughly mid-pack in the overall CPU landscape, despite the large head-to-head differences. The nearest rivals for the AMD chip include the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 at a 0.3% delta and the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS at a -0.6% delta. The nearest rivals for the Intel chip include the Intel Core i5-1155G7 at a -0.1% delta and the Intel Core i3-12100TE at a 0.7% delta.

The Verdict

The data is one-sided. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins all four head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 10.2% to 104.4%. If you are choosing purely on measured performance, the AMD chip is the answer. It is faster in every recorded test, often by a wide margin.

The Intel Core i5-9500T is the choice only if your platform requires it. It is a desktop chip with a 35 W TDP, so it fits in standard Socket 1151 motherboards. The AMD chip is a mobile part on the FP6 socket, so it is not a drop-in replacement for a desktop build. If you have an existing Socket 1151 board and need a low-power CPU, the i5-9500T is a reasonable option. But the benchmark data shows it is significantly slower than the AMD part in every measured workload.

The AMD chip is also the more future-proof option. It is still in active production, while the Intel chip is end-of-life. The AMD chip has a smaller process node, more cores, more threads, and higher memory bandwidth. The Intel chip has a slightly larger L3 cache and a lower TDP, but those advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

For a new build, the 4800HS is the clear pick if you can use a mobile platform. For an upgrade to an existing desktop, the i5-9500T is the only one of the two that fits. The performance gap is real and large, but the socket difference is the deciding factor for many users.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS wins the Cinebench R15 multicore test with a score of 1700.5 versus 832 for the Intel Core i5-9500T, a 104.4% advantage. It also wins Geekbench multicore with 7019 versus 4407, a 59.3% lead.

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

A: The AMD chip wins both single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, it scores 186.5 versus 117, a 59.4% delta. In Geekbench singlecore, it scores 1320 versus 1198, a 10.2% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i5-9500T has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which CPU has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Core i5-9500T has a TDP of 35 W. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: What memory types do the two CPUs support?

A: The AMD chip supports DDR4 and LPDDR4. The Intel chip supports DDR4 only. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS is marked as active. The Intel Core i5-9500T is marked as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS | Intel Core i5-9500T |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP6 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 9,800 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 156 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, LPDDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics 448SP | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-01-05 | 2018-03-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $192 |