AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS posts an average benchmark score of 32354, while the Intel Core i5-14400F scores 32279. The delta between them is just 0.2% in favor of the AMD part, placing both at the 83rd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F scores 21645 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 44.6% higher than the Ryzen 7 6800HS's 11992. This is the largest single-benchmark gap between the two processors.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. The Ryzen 7 6800HS wins three head-to-head tests: PassMark data encryption (18104 vs 16949, a 6.8% advantage), PassMark extended instructions (20114 vs 19937, a 0.9% edge), and PassMark integer math (84228 vs 81524, a 3.3% lead).

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel chip leads by 14% in PassMark single-thread (3701 vs 3184) and by 52.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core (3055 vs 1455). The Cinebench gap is notably larger than the PassMark gap, suggesting workload-specific behavior.

Q: Do these processors share the same socket?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel Core i5-14400F uses Intel Socket 1700. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS does not. This is a distinguishing feature for reliability-focused builds.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS is built on TSMC's 6 nm process with a Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt codename. The Intel Core i5-14400F uses Intel's 10 nm process (Raptor Lake architecture, Raptor Lake-R codename). The die sizes are close — 208 mm² for AMD versus 215 mm² for Intel — but the transistor-level design philosophies diverge significantly.

Core configurations tell a clear story. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, all using the same Zen 3+ design. The Intel part has 10 cores and 16 threads, which implies a hybrid arrangement of performance and efficiency cores — though the exact mix is not specified in the data. The cache hierarchy differs substantially: AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L2 cache (1.25 MB vs 512 KB) suggests a design aimed at keeping more data closer to the execution units.

Memory support marks another fundamental split. The Ryzen 7 6800HS is limited to DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a measured bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core i5-14400F supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though its memory bandwidth is not listed. The AMD chip integrates a Radeon 680M GPU; the Intel part has no integrated graphics (N/A).

PCIe capabilities also differ. AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes; Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The newer PCIe standard on Intel could matter for storage and GPU bandwidth, but the AMD part provides more total lanes. The AMD chip is a mobile part on Socket FP7 with a 35 W TDP, while the Intel chip is a desktop part on Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP. Both have locked multipliers, so overclocking headroom is restricted either way.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a lopsided picture. The Intel Core i5-14400F wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench and Geekbench test in the comparison. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS wins three specialized PassMark workloads: encryption, extended instructions, and integer math. This split suggests Intel's architecture holds a decisive edge in general-purpose compute, while AMD's Zen 3+ design retains strengths in specific cryptographic and integer-heavy tasks.

The Intel chip's wins are not marginal. It leads by double digits in Cinebench R23 multi-core (44.6%), Cinebench R23 single-core (52.4%), PassMark physics (33.7%), PassMark find prime numbers (34.9%), and PassMark floating-point math (22.5%). These are categories that respond to raw core throughput and clock efficiency. The AMD wins are narrower (0.9% to 6.8%), indicating that its advantages are situational rather than dominant.

The market segment distinction matters. The Ryzen 7 6800HS is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, designed for laptops where power and thermals are constrained. The Core i5-14400F is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, able to sustain higher performance envelopes. In a direct comparison, the desktop part's higher power budget likely explains much of its performance lead. The AMD chip's wins in encryption and integer math suggest its Zen 3+ cores handle certain instruction patterns more efficiently per watt.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every specification line. Core count: 8 for AMD vs 10 for Intel. Thread count is identical at 16. Base clock: 3.20 GHz for AMD vs 2.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clock: 4.70 GHz for both. TDP: 35 W for AMD vs 65 W for Intel.

Cache totals diverge per core and shared pools. AMD's L1 is 64 KB per core, L2 is 512 KB per core, and L3 is 16 MB shared. Intel's L1 is 80 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and L3 is 20 MB shared. Intel's per-core L2 is 2.4 times larger.

Process node: 6 nm (TSMC) for AMD vs 10 nm (Intel) for Intel. Die size: 208 mm² vs 215 mm². Memory support: DDR5 only vs DDR4/DDR5. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (AMD) vs not listed (Intel). ECC: false for AMD, true for Intel.

PCIe: Gen 4, 20 lanes (AMD) vs Gen 5, 16 lanes (Intel). Integrated graphics: Radeon 680M (AMD) vs N/A (Intel). Socket: FP7 vs 1700. Market segment: Mobile vs Desktop. Release date: not listed for AMD vs 2024-01-07 for Intel. Launch MSRP: not listed for AMD vs $196 for Intel. Part numbers also differ (100-000000545100-000000561 vs SRN3RSRN47).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clear pattern: Intel wins most tests, but the magnitude varies enormously. The largest Intel victory is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the i5-14400F scores 3055 against the Ryzen 7 6800HS's 1455 — a 52.4% gap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows a 44.6% Intel advantage (21645 vs 11992). These two results define the overall performance relationship.

Geekbench results are closer but still favor Intel. Multi-core: 11268 vs 9515 (15.6% Intel lead). Single-core: 2058 vs 1652 (19.7% Intel lead). Cinebench R15 tells a similar story: multi-core 2181 vs 1987 (8.9% Intel), single-core 307 vs 234 (23.8% Intel). The single-core gap in Cinebench R15 is nearly as large as in R23, suggesting Intel's per-thread execution is consistently superior across generations of the Cinebench workload.

PassMark tests show a mixed bag. Intel wins multithread (25470 vs 22801, 10.5%), physics (1523 vs 1009, 33.7%), floating-point math (61319 vs 47533, 22.5%), find prime numbers (86 vs 56, 34.9%), data compression (315521 vs 292698, 7.2%), random string sorting (32680 vs 30266, 7.4%), and single-thread (3701 vs 3184, 14%). AMD wins data encryption (18104 vs 16949, 6.8%), extended instructions (20114 vs 19937, 0.9%), and integer math (84228 vs 81524, 3.3%).

The encryption win is notable: AMD leads by 6.8% in a test that often reflects AES-NI and cryptographic instruction efficiency. The extended instructions margin is razor-thin at 0.9%, nearly a tie. The integer math win (3.3%) shows AMD's cores handle certain integer workloads with relative strength. But these three wins are outweighed by the breadth and depth of Intel's advantages elsewhere. The total win count is 14 for Intel, 3 for AMD.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i5-14400F as the stronger processor in almost every measurable way. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, with leads exceeding 50% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 44% in multi-core. The only category where the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS shows a clear edge is encryption (6.8%), with marginal wins in extended instructions and integer math. For anyone choosing between these two purely on performance, the Intel part is the obvious pick.

But the specification differences tell a more nuanced story. The Ryzen 7 6800HS is a mobile chip with a 35 W TDP, while the Core i5-14400F is a desktop chip with a 65 W TDP. The AMD part includes a Radeon 680M integrated GPU, making it a complete mobile package; the Intel part has no integrated graphics at all. The AMD chip uses less power and fits in a laptop socket. The Intel chip requires a dedicated GPU for any display output and is locked to desktop platforms.

The socket and platform context matters. AMD's FP7 socket is mobile-only, while Intel's 1700 socket spans desktop builds. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, offering flexibility, and supports ECC memory — a feature the AMD part lacks. The AMD chip supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes; the Intel chip supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Depending on the workload, newer PCIe generation could offset the lane count difference.

The verdict from the data: choose the Intel Core i5-14400F for desktop workloads where raw performance is the priority, especially single-threaded tasks, physics simulations, and floating-point math. Choose the AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS for mobile systems where integrated graphics, lower power consumption (35 W vs 65 W), and encryption/integer performance are the deciding factors. The 0.2% difference in average benchmark scores between the two (32354 vs 32279) is negligible. The real differences are in workload-specific strengths and platform context. Those three AMD wins in encryption, extended instructions, and integer math may matter more than the raw win count suggests for niche use cases.