AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K occupy different corners of the processor market, one a mobile chip for laptops and the other a desktop flagship. The benchmark data reveals a stark performance gap, with the Intel part winning 12 of 13 head-to-head tests, yet the AMD chip still manages to carve out a niche with its efficiency and one surprising victory. The numbers tell a story of architectural ambition versus raw execution, and the results are not always predictable.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive metric is multi-core performance in Cinebench R23, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35,850 against the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX’s 25,265. That is a 29.5% advantage for Intel, a substantial gap that reflects its higher core count and desktop-class power envelope. The single-core Cinebench R23 result is closer, with Intel leading 2,020 to 1,857, an 8.1% margin that shows the AMD chip is not far behind in lightly threaded tasks.

The PassMark suite amplifies Intel’s dominance in compute-heavy workloads. Floating point math is a rout: Intel scores 189,629 versus AMD’s 86,747, a 54.3% difference that highlights the Ultra 7 265K’s superior SIMD throughput. Prime number finding shows a 38.1% Intel lead (491 vs 304), and encryption tasks see Intel ahead by 38% (48,246 vs 29,919). Even extended instruction workloads, often a strong suit for AMD’s Zen architecture, favor Intel by 32.8% (54,333 vs 36,527).

Memory-intensive benchmarks follow the same pattern. Data compression gives Intel a 25.4% edge (665,554 vs 496,427), while random string sorting, a test of memory latency and cache efficiency, shows Intel ahead by 27.3% (79,752 vs 57,971). The PassMark multithread score, a broad measure of parallel performance, lands at 58,594 for Intel versus 41,732 for AMD, a 28.8% gap that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core result.

The physics benchmark, which often stresses scheduling and core coordination, is another Intel win by a wide margin: 3,731 versus 2,185, a 41.4% difference. Where does AMD fight back? Integer math is the lone bright spot. The Ryzen 7 8840HX scores 146,506 against Intel’s 143,242, a narrow 2.3% victory that suggests AMD’s Zen 4 cores handle integer arithmetic with relative efficiency. This single win does little to offset the overall picture, but it is a meaningful data point for integer-focused workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Dragon Range, fabricated on a 5nm process at TSMC. This is a mobile-first design, with a 55W TDP and a dual-chiplet layout totaling 2x 71 mm² of die area, housing 13,140 million transistors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, by contrast, is Arrow Lake-S on a 3nm TSMC node, a monolithic 243 mm² die with 17,800 million transistors and a 125W TDP. The process node difference alone—5nm versus 3nm—explains part of Intel’s efficiency in transistor density, though the higher power budget is a larger factor in raw performance.

Core configuration diverges sharply. AMD offers 12 cores and 24 threads, leveraging simultaneous multithreading (SMT) to double its thread count. Intel’s 20 cores and 20 threads omit SMT entirely, relying on physical cores alone. This means Intel’s core count advantage is real, but AMD’s thread count is higher per core, which can help in heavily threaded workloads that scale with logical processors. The cache hierarchy is also very different: AMD provides 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while Intel has only 30 MB. However, Intel’s L1 cache is 192 KB per core versus AMD’s 64 KB, and its L2 is 3 MB per core versus AMD’s 1 MB, suggesting Intel favors per-core cache for latency-sensitive tasks.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 83.2 GB/s, both using dual-channel DDR5. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD supplies 28 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers 20 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics are present on both, with AMD’s Radeon 610M and Intel’s Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though neither is a gaming-grade solution. Intel also supports ECC memory, which AMD does not, a feature that may appeal to workstation users.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX has 12 cores and 24 threads. Intel relies on physical cores, while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to reach a higher thread count.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark integer math, scoring 146,506 versus Intel’s 143,242, a 2.3% lead. This is the only head-to-head test it wins out of 13.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The biggest difference is in floating point math, where Intel leads by 54.3% (189,629 vs 86,747). This suggests a major advantage in scientific and graphics-heavy computations.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD chip has a 55W TDP, while Intel’s is 125W. This indicates AMD is designed for lower-power mobile systems, whereas Intel targets desktop performance.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Intel’s boost clock is 5.50 GHz, compared to AMD’s 5.10 GHz. Intel’s base clock is also higher at 3.90 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR5 dual-channel memory, but Intel offers higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 83.2 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the faster processor in nearly every measurable way. Its 29.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 54.3% lead in floating point math, and 38% lead in encryption are not marginal differences—they represent a generational gulf in compute capability. The Intel chip also holds a 8.1% advantage in single-core Cinebench R23, which matters for everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications.

However, the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX is not without merit. Its 55W TDP is less than half of Intel’s 125W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermal and battery constraints dominate. The 2.3% win in integer math shows that Zen 4 is not obsolete, and its higher L3 cache (64 MB vs 30 MB) could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads. But for pure performance, the Intel part wins 12 of 13 tests, and the one AMD victory is narrow.

The nearestRivals data contextualizes both chips. AMD’s 8840HX sits within 0.6% of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8270 and 0.2% of the Core Ultra 7 265KF, indicating it is competitive with older server parts. Intel’s 265K is within 1.3% of the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, suggesting it trades blows with current desktop chips. Both processors rank in the 94th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a slouch, but the Intel part delivers more absolute performance for desktop users.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 12 (AMD) vs 20 (Intel)
• Threads: 24 (AMD) vs 20 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 2.90 GHz (AMD) vs 3.90 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 5.10 GHz (AMD) vs 5.50 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 55W (AMD) vs 125W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket FL1 vs Intel Socket 1851
• Process Node: 5 nm (AMD) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 13,140 million (AMD) vs 17,800 million (Intel)
• Die Size: 2x 71 mm² (AMD) vs 243 mm² (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) vs 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs 3 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 64 MB shared (AMD) vs 30 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s (AMD) vs 102.4 GB/s (Intel)
• PCIe Lanes: 28 Gen 5 (AMD) vs 20 Gen 5 (Intel)
• ECC Memory: No (AMD) vs Yes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 610M (AMD) vs Arc Xe-LPG 64EU (Intel)
• Market Segment: Mobile (AMD) vs Desktop (Intel)
• Release Date: 2025-04-22 (AMD) vs 2024-10-23 (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: $394 (Intel only)

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX wins in scenarios where power efficiency is paramount. Its 55W TDP makes it a viable option for laptops that need sustained multi-core performance without excessive heat or battery drain. The 2.3% integer math victory is a niche but real advantage for integer-heavy algorithms like certain compression or hashing tasks. Its larger L3 cache (64 MB) could also benefit workloads that repeatedly access a large dataset, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins in every other measurable category, but the margins vary. For floating point math, encryption, and physics simulations, the 38% to 54% leads make it the clear choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and 3D rendering. Its higher memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s) and per-core cache (192 KB L1, 3 MB L2) support latency-sensitive applications like real-time analytics. The 20 physical cores, while lacking SMT, provide strong multi-threaded throughput for video encoding, compilation, and other parallel workloads. The ECC memory support is a differentiator for reliability-critical server or workstation builds.

In short, the Intel chip is for users who prioritize maximum performance and have the thermal headroom for a 125W desktop part. The AMD chip is for mobile users who need capable performance in a power-constrained chassis, and who can live with a significant multi-core deficit in exchange for portability and efficiency.