AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS vs Intel Core i9-10900 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data draws a clear and consistent picture: the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS wins every single head-to-head test in the database, while the Intel Core i9-10900 fails to claim a single victory. That is a complete sweep, six wins to zero, and the margins are remarkably uniform across workloads.

The Ryzen 7 5800HS takes the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 suites in both single-core and multi-core runs. The multi-core results are particularly telling. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 16,690 against the Intel part's 16,219, a lead of roughly 2.8 percent. The same pattern repeats in R20 multi-core: 7,009 versus 6,811, again about 2.8 percent ahead. In R15 multi-core, the gap is 1,682 versus 1,634, or roughly 2.9 percent. The consistency of these margins suggests a fundamental efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Single-core performance tells the same story with slightly smaller gaps. The Ryzen 7 5800HS leads by 3 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core (237 versus 230), and by 2.8 percent in both R20 single-core (989 versus 961) and R23 single-core (2,356 versus 2,289). These are narrow but unambiguous margins, and they hold across every rendering workload in the comparison set.

What makes this outcome particularly interesting is the context. The Intel Core i9-10900 is a desktop processor with 10 cores and 20 threads, a 65-watt TDP, and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS is a mobile processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, a 35-watt TDP, and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The desktop part has more cores, more threads, and a higher maximum clock speed, yet it trails in every measured rendering test. The data implies that the Zen 3 architecture's instructions-per-clock efficiency, combined with the smaller 7 nm process node, more than compensates for the lower core count and clock ceiling in these workloads.

The broader database metrics reinforce this conclusion. The Ryzen 7 5800HS sits at the 59th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core i9-10900 sits at the 58th percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 4,827, compared to 4,614 for the Intel part. That is a roughly 4.6 percent advantage in the aggregate, which is larger than any single head-to-head margin, indicating that the AMD processor also performs strongly in tests outside the Cinebench family.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The Core i9-10900's closest competitors in the database include the Intel Core i9-9900KF with an average score of 4,652, the Intel Xeon W-2145 at 4,576, the Intel Core i9-10900F at 4,664, and the Intel Xeon E-2356G at 4,548. The Ryzen 7 5800HS, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 4700GE at 4,836, the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X at 4,807, the Intel Xeon E-2386G at 4,799, and the Intel Core i5-1350P at 4,776. The AMD part's nearest rivals are generally higher-scoring than the Intel part's nearest rivals, which places it in a more competitive performance tier despite its mobile form factor.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for rendering and multi-threaded productivity work: the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS is the stronger performer in the scenarios captured by these benchmarks. It wins every head-to-head test, holds a higher average benchmark score, and achieves these results while drawing less power and fitting into a mobile chassis. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench throughput, the choice is clear.

However, the Intel Core i9-10900 should not be dismissed outright, and the data supports a more nuanced recommendation. The Intel part offers 10 cores and 20 threads, which is more parallel hardware than the Ryzen's 8 cores and 16 threads. It also boosts to 5.20 GHz, which is substantially higher than the Ryzen's 4.40 GHz. In workloads not represented in this head-to-head set, particularly those that scale with core count or respond to very high clock speeds, the Intel processor could plausibly close the gap or take the lead. The database does not include such tests for this pairing, so the verdict must be bounded by the evidence.

The percentile rankings are close, 58th for Intel versus 59th for AMD, which suggests that the two processors occupy nearly the same overall performance tier in the broader database. The average benchmark scores, 4,614 for Intel and 4,827 for AMD, show the AMD part ahead, but not by a dramatic margin. The head-to-head Cinebench results are similarly narrow, all within roughly 3 percent.

Who should pick which? Users whose primary workloads match the Cinebench rendering pattern, such as 3D artists, video editors, or engineers running CPU-based simulations, should favor the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS based on its consistent wins. Users who need the Intel part's specific desktop platform features, such as Socket 1200 compatibility, its 10-core configuration, or its higher boost clock for lightly threaded tasks, may still prefer the Core i9-10900. The data does not rule out the Intel part; it simply shows that the AMD part wins every measured comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test opens the comparison with the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS scoring 1,682 against the Intel Core i9-10900's 1,634. The margin is 2.9 percent in AMD's favor. This is the largest multi-core gap in the set, and it is notable because Cinebench R15 is an older workload that tends to favor higher clock speeds. The Intel part's 5.20 GHz boost clock did not translate into a win here.

Cinebench R20 multi-core follows a similar pattern. The Ryzen 7 5800HS scores 7,009, while the Core i9-10900 scores 6,811. The margin is 2.8 percent. R20 is a more demanding workload than R15, and it typically rewards both core count and architectural efficiency. The AMD part wins despite having two fewer cores and four fewer threads.

Cinebench R23 multi-core, the most recent and most demanding multi-core test in the set, shows the same 2.8 percent margin. The Ryzen 7 5800HS scores 16,690, and the Core i9-10900 scores 16,219. The consistency of this margin across three generations of the Cinebench suite is striking. It suggests that the architectural advantage is stable and not dependent on a specific workload version.

Single-core results are equally consistent. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Ryzen 7 5800HS scores 237, and the Core i9-10900 scores 230, a 3 percent margin. In R20 single-core, the scores are 989 and 961, respectively, a 2.8 percent margin. In R23 single-core, the scores are 2,356 and 2,289, again a 2.8 percent margin. The Intel part's higher boost clock, 5.20 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, should theoretically give it an advantage in single-threaded tests, yet it loses every one.

The database also records additional benchmarks for the Intel Core i9-10900 that have no direct counterpart in the AMD part's results. These include 3DMark tests across various thread counts and Geekbench tests. In 3DMark with 16 threads, the Intel part scores 7,391; with 2 threads, 1,598; with 4 threads, 3,052; with 8 threads, 5,276; with max threads, 8,083; and with a single thread, 815. In Geekbench, it scores 8,585 multi-core and 1,651 single-core. These results cannot be compared directly to the Ryzen 7 5800HS because the AMD part lacks matching entries in the head-to-head set, but they do contribute to the Intel part's overall average score of 4,614.

The Ryzen 7 5800HS has no recorded 3DMark or Geekbench scores in the database, which limits the comparison to the Cinebench family. Still, the available evidence is sufficient to establish a clear performance hierarchy in rendering workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS wins all six head-to-head tests in the database. The Intel Core i9-10900 wins none.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 5800HS scores 16,690 versus the Core i9-10900's 16,219, a lead of 2.8 percent. The margins in R15 and R20 multi-core are 2.9 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively.

Q: Does the Intel Core i9-10900's higher boost clock help it win single-threaded tests?

A: No. The Core i9-10900 boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Ryzen 7 5800HS boosts to 4.40 GHz, yet the Ryzen 7 5800HS wins every single-core Cinebench test by roughly 3 percent.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall database percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS sits at the 59th percentile among all CPUs, and the Intel Core i9-10900 sits at the 58th percentile. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 4,827, while the Intel part's is 4,614.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-10900 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Core i9-10900 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS has a TDP of 35 watts.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i9-10900 and the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel part is built on Comet Lake, a 14 nm architecture produced by Intel's own foundry. The AMD part uses Zen 3, branded as Cezanne, and is manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 7 nm, which helps explain why the AMD part delivers competitive or superior performance while drawing roughly half the power.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this architectural divide. The Ryzen 7 5800HS packs 10,700 million transistors onto a 180 mm² die. The Intel Core i9-10900 has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database, but its 14 nm process and 10-core configuration imply a larger, less dense design. The AMD part's higher transistor density is a direct consequence of the smaller process node.

Cache hierarchies differ as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the Intel part has 256 KB per core, while the AMD part has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is shared, with the Intel part offering 20 MB and the AMD part offering 16 MB. The AMD part's larger L2 cache may contribute to its efficiency in rendering workloads, where data reuse patterns benefit from faster access to more cache.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Intel Core i9-10900 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS includes Radeon Vega 8. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either. The Intel part is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the AMD part remains active.

The socket and platform targets are completely different. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1200 and is classified as a desktop processor. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP6 and is classified as a mobile processor. This distinction matters for system builders: the Intel part requires a desktop motherboard, while the AMD part is designed for laptops and other mobile form factors. The market segments are reflected in their power envelopes, 65 watts for the desktop part and 35 watts for the mobile part.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification field. The Intel Core i9-10900 offers 10 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS offers 8 cores and 16 threads. Both have a base clock of 2.80 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: the Intel part reaches 5.20 GHz, while the AMD part reaches 4.40 GHz. The Intel part's higher boost clock is its clearest specification advantage.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Intel part has a TDP of 65 watts, and the AMD part has a TDP of 35 watts. This nearly 2-to-1 ratio is remarkable given that the AMD part wins every head-to-head benchmark in the set. The lower power draw also makes the AMD part suitable for thinner, lighter laptops with less robust cooling solutions.

Cache configurations differ in both L2 and L3. The Intel part has 256 KB of L2 per core and 20 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has 512 KB of L2 per core and 16 MB of shared L3. The AMD part's larger per-core L2 cache may help offset its smaller L3 pool.

Memory bandwidth also favors the AMD part. The Intel Core i9-10900 records 46.9 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS records 68.3 GB/s. Both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, and neither supports ECC memory. The AMD part's higher memory bandwidth could contribute to its performance in memory-intensive rendering tasks.

PCIe capability differs as well. The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part also supports PCIe Gen 3, but the database does not specify a lane count for it. The integrated graphics differ, with Intel offering UHD Graphics 630 and AMD offering Radeon Vega 8.

Production status and release timing separate the two further. The Intel Core i9-10900 was released on April 29, 2020, and is now end-of-life. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS was released on January 11, 2021, and remains active. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $483, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The part numbers also differ: the Intel part is SRH8Z, and the AMD part is 100-000000295.