AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS vs Intel Core i9-9900KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The Intel Core i9-9900KF does not claim a single victory. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD chip leads by the same margin, 8.4%. This uniformity suggests a fundamental efficiency and architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15, the Ryzen 7 5800HS scores 1682 in multi-core against 1541 for the i9-9900KF. The single-core result is 237 versus 217. Moving to Cinebench R20, the AMD processor posts 7009 multi-core and 989 single-core, while the Intel part manages 6422 and 906, respectively. In Cinebench R23, the gap persists: the Ryzen 7 5800HS achieves 16690 multi-core and 2356 single-core, compared to 15292 and 2158 for the i9-9900KF. Each of these six deltas is exactly 8.4%, meaning the relative performance difference is identical across all tested versions of Cinebench.

The Geekbench results are not part of the head-to-head list, but the database includes them separately. There, the i9-9900KF scores 8970 multi-core and 1706 single-core. The Ryzen 7 5800HS has no recorded Geekbench scores in the database, so a direct comparison on that test cannot be made.

Looking at the broader picture, the Ryzen 7 5800HS holds an average benchmark score of 4827, placing it in the 59th percentile among all CPUs. The i9-9900KF averages 4652, which places it in the 58th percentile. That is a slim overall gap, but the head-to-head Cinebench results are unambiguous: the AMD part is faster in every measured scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Core i9-9900KF wins zero.

Q: What is the performance difference between the two in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ryzen 7 5800HS leads by 8.4% in both multi-core and single-core. Multi-core scores are 16690 versus 15292, and single-core scores are 2356 versus 2158.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 5800HS has an average benchmark score of 4827, while the i9-9900KF scores 4652. The AMD part also sits one percentile higher, at 59 versus 58.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Intel CPU is competitive?

A: In the head-to-head data, the Intel CPU loses every test by the same 8.4% margin. There are no recorded wins for the i9-9900KF.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each CPU?

A: The i9-9900KF's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-10900F, with a delta of -0.3%. The Ryzen 7 5800HS's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 4700GE, with a delta of -0.2%.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 5800HS have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon Vega 8 graphics. The i9-9900KF has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-9900KF is built on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-R refresh, using a 14 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS is a Zen 3 part, codenamed Cezanne, manufactured on a 7 nm node by TSMC. That process advantage is significant: the AMD chip packs 10,700 million transistors into a die size of 180 mm², while the Intel die is 180.3 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Both CPUs share the same core and thread counts, 8 cores and 16 threads, and both have 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core. However, the L2 cache differs: the i9-9900KF has 256 KB per core, while the Ryzen 7 5800HS doubles that to 512 KB per core. This larger L2 cache can help with certain workloads by reducing latency and improving data locality.

The memory interface also diverges. Both support DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, but the Ryzen 7 5800HS has a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, compared to 42.7 GB/s for the i9-9900KF. That is a substantial difference, likely stemming from the Zen 3 architecture's more efficient memory controller.

The integrated graphics situation is another clear split. The Ryzen 7 5800HS includes Radeon Vega 8, making it a self-contained mobile APU. The i9-9900KF has no integrated graphics at all, which is why the "KF" suffix indicates a chip without the usual Intel UHD graphics. This means the Intel part requires a discrete GPU, while the AMD chip can handle basic display output on its own.

The PCIe support is similar in generation, both Gen 3, but the Intel part specifies 16 lanes from the CPU, while the AMD entry only lists "Gen 3" without lane details. The AMD chip is also not multiplier-unlocked, whereas the i9-9900KF is unlocked for overclocking.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the thermal design power. The i9-9900KF has a TDP of 95 watts, while the Ryzen 7 5800HS is rated at just 35 watts. This is a massive efficiency gap, especially considering the AMD chip is faster in the recorded benchmarks. The clock speeds reflect this: Intel runs at 3.60 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, while AMD runs lower at 2.80 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost. Despite the lower clocks, the Zen 3 architecture delivers higher scores.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel uses Socket 1151, while AMD uses Socket FP6. The market segments differ as well, with the i9-9900KF being a desktop part and the Ryzen 7 5800HS being a mobile part. The production status also differs: Intel is end-of-life, while AMD is active. Release dates are roughly two years apart, with Intel launching on 2019-01-07 and AMD on 2021-01-11.

The process node is a key differentiator: 14 nm for Intel versus 7 nm for AMD. The foundry also differs, with Intel using its own fabs and AMD using TSMC. The L2 cache size per core is different, as noted earlier. The memory bandwidth is different, 42.7 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s. The integrated graphics presence is a binary difference, and the multiplier unlock status is another: the i9-9900KF is unlocked, the Ryzen 7 5800HS is not.

The i9-9900KF has a launch MSRP of $488, while the Ryzen 7 5800HS has no launch MSRP recorded. The part numbers also differ, as do the generation labels, with Intel listing "Core i9 (Coffee Lake Refresh)" and AMD listing "Ryzen 7 (Zen 3 (Cezanne))".

Where Each One Wins

The data is one-sided: the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS wins every recorded benchmark. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the AMD chip is ahead by 8.4%. This means for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering, the Ryzen 7 5800HS is the better performer. That includes tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and other multi-threaded creative work, where the consistent multi-core lead matters.

The i9-9900KF's only potential advantages come from its specification sheet, not from benchmark wins. It has a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.40 GHz, but the recorded single-core scores do not reflect an advantage; the AMD part wins single-core tests by the same 8.4%. The Intel chip is also multiplier-unlocked, which means overclocking is possible, but the database provides no overclocked results to evaluate. The desktop form factor allows for larger cooling solutions, but again, no such measurements are in the data.

For users who need integrated graphics, the Ryzen 7 5800HS is the only option here, as the i9-9900KF has none. The AMD part also draws far less power, 35 watts versus 95 watts, which makes it suited for thin-and-light laptops or systems where heat and battery life are priorities. The Intel part, being a desktop chip with a higher TDP, belongs in a traditional tower with a dedicated GPU.

The Ryzen 7 5800HS also has a higher average benchmark score and a slightly better percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 4700GE and the Ryzen 9 3950X, both of which are within 0.4% of its average score. The i9-9900KF's nearest rivals are Intel parts, like the i9-10900F and i9-10900, all within 1.2%.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 7 5800HS is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by a consistent 8.4% margin, holds a higher average benchmark score, and achieves this while consuming only 35 watts compared to 95 watts for the Intel chip. For anyone building a system where performance per watt matters, the choice is clear.

The i9-9900KF is not without merits, but they are not reflected in the benchmark scores. It offers an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a higher boost clock, and a desktop socket that allows for robust cooling. However, the database shows no scenario where it outperforms the Ryzen 7 5800HS. The Intel part also requires a discrete GPU, adding cost and complexity to a build.

The use case split is straightforward: choose the Ryzen 7 5800HS for a portable, efficient system that still delivers top-tier multi-core performance. Choose the i9-9900KF only if you specifically need a desktop CPU with an unlocked multiplier and already have a dedicated graphics card, accepting that it will trail the AMD part in every measured benchmark. The data does not support a recommendation for the Intel chip based on performance alone.