AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T dominates. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 26232 against the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS's 14784, a 43.6% lead. The Intel part also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 7%.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS wins three of the fifteen recorded head-to-head tests. It leads in PassMark data compression (311199 vs 295100, 5.5% ahead), integer math (93342 vs 84244, 10.8% ahead), and random string sorting (37922 vs 35377, 7.2% ahead).

Q: How do their single-threaded scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is decisively ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3703 versus the AMD's 1724, a 53.4% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4339 versus 3692, a 14.9% edge for Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T has 14 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has 8 cores. However, the AMD part supports 16 threads (2 per core), whereas the Intel part has 14 threads (1 per core).

Q: What are the architectural differences between these two CPUs?

A: The AMD uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4nm TSMC process, codenamed Hawk Point. The Intel uses Arrow Lake architecture on a 3nm TSMC process, codenamed Arrow Lake-S. They also use different sockets: AMD Socket FP7 for the Ryzen, Intel Socket 1851 for the Core Ultra.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS sits in the 87th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is in the 86th percentile. Despite the Intel part winning most head-to-head tests, the AMD's average benchmark score of 39603 is slightly higher than Intel's 38561.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market segments. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is a mobile-focused chip from the 8000 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename. It uses a 4nm TSMC process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, using Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, fabricated on a 3nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors on a larger 243 mm² die.

Core and thread configurations differ markedly. The AMD chip provides 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Intel chip offers 14 cores and 14 threads, with no multithreading per core. This gives Intel a raw core-count advantage of 6 cores, while AMD has 2 extra threads.

Cache hierarchies reflect these architectural choices. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. Intel's per-core L2 allocation is triple that of AMD's, and its shared L3 is 50% larger.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T runs at a 2.20 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost. Despite the lower base, Intel achieves higher benchmark scores, indicating its architecture extracts more performance per clock cycle.

Power envelopes diverge sharply. The AMD chip has a 28W TDP, typical for mobile processors, while the Intel part carries a 65W TDP, reflecting its desktop market segment. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s, both using dual-channel DDR5. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

Integrated graphics present another contrast. AMD includes Radeon 780M graphics, while Intel pairs the Core Ultra 5 235T with Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Both are active production parts, but the AMD was released on April 15, 2024, while the Intel launched on January 6, 2025.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins twelve of the fifteen recorded comparisons, often by substantial margins. The most dramatic difference appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel scores 3703 against AMD's 1724, a 53.4% advantage. This gap indicates a fundamental difference in per-core efficiency. Cinebench R23 multi-core tells a similar story: Intel's 26232 versus AMD's 14784, a 43.6% lead.

PassMark floating point math shows Intel at 106546 versus AMD's 55739, a 47.7% advantage. Prime number finding reveals the largest delta: Intel scores 318, AMD scores 84, a 73.6% gap. Physics simulation also favors Intel heavily, 2157 versus 1351, a 37.4% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel 23457 versus 18838, a 19.7% edge. Extended instructions show a narrower 3.9% Intel advantage, 23212 versus 22298.

Multi-threaded PassMark results put Intel ahead 30918 versus 26646, a 13.8% margin. Single-thread PassMark gives Intel 4339 versus 3692, a 14.9% win. Cinebench R15 multi-core is closer: Intel wins 2644 versus 2458, only 7% ahead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows Intel at 373 versus AMD's 271.5, a 27.2% edge.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS takes three wins, all in specialized workloads. PassMark data compression goes to AMD 311199 versus 295100, a 5.5% win. Integer math favors AMD 93342 versus 84244, a 10.8% advantage. Random string sorting also goes to AMD 37922 versus 35377, a 7.2% margin. These wins suggest AMD's architecture handles certain integer-heavy and compression tasks with greater efficiency, even while losing most other tests.

The overall benchmark tally is lopsided: Intel wins 12 tests, AMD wins 3. Yet the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. AMD's average is 39603, slightly above Intel's 38561. This discrepancy arises because AMD's wins come in high-magnitude tests like data compression, where its score is exceptionally high, boosting the average despite fewer victories.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T for general-purpose performance. It wins the majority of benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 7% to 53.4%. The single-core advantage is particularly pronounced, with Intel leading by 53.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 14.9% in PassMark single-thread. For workloads that depend on single-thread responsiveness, such as everyday desktop use, the Intel processor is the stronger choice.

The Intel part also excels in multi-core throughput, leading Cinebench R23 multi-core by 43.6% and PassMark multi-thread by 13.8%. Its 14 cores provide substantial parallel processing capacity. Users running rendering, physics simulation, or floating-point math should prefer the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS is not without merit, but its wins are confined to specific niches. Data compression (5.5% lead), integer math (10.8% lead), and random string sorting (7.2% lead) are its only victories. These results indicate AMD's architecture handles certain integer-oriented and data-manipulation tasks more efficiently. However, these are narrow use cases compared to the broad performance dominance of Intel.

Market segment matters here. The AMD chip is a mobile processor with a 28W TDP, designed for laptops and portable devices. The Intel chip is a desktop processor with a 65W TDP. The benchmark scores reflect this: Intel's higher power envelope enables greater performance. For desktop users prioritizing speed, the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is the rational choice. For mobile systems where power efficiency is critical, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS offers competitive performance in a lower-power package.

Percentile rankings are nearly identical: AMD at 87th, Intel at 86th. The average benchmark scores place AMD slightly ahead (39603 versus 38561), but this aggregate number masks the Intel part's dominance in most individual tests. Buyers should base decisions on their specific workloads rather than the average score alone.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS | Intel Core Ultra 5 235T |

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

| Series | 8000 series | Core Ultra Series 2 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | TSMC |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| Cores | 8 | 14 |

| Threads | 16 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 28W | 65W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | April 15, 2024 | January 6, 2025 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $247 |

The table shows every field where the two processors differ. They share DDR5 memory support and dual-channel memory buses. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $247; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core Ultra 5 235T:

The Intel processor wins in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. Users running 3D rendering, video encoding, or other multi-threaded creative workloads should choose Intel. The 43.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 53.4% lead in single-core make it the clear pick for content creation. PassMark physics results (37.4% ahead) indicate better performance in simulation and physics-based applications. Floating-point math shows a 47.7% advantage, suiting scientific computing and financial modeling. Data encryption runs 19.7% faster, benefiting security-sensitive workloads. Prime number finding shows a 73.6% gap, indicating strong performance in integer-heavy algorithmic tasks. Extended instructions are 3.9% faster, a smaller but consistent edge. General multi-threading favors Intel by 13.8%, and single-thread performance by 14.9%.

AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS:

The AMD processor wins in three specific areas. Data compression runs 5.5% faster, making it suitable for file archiving, database compression, and backup software. Integer math shows a 10.8% advantage, helping with general calculation tasks, cryptography algorithms, and spreadsheet operations. Random string sorting is 7.2% faster, which could benefit text processing, log analysis, and data indexing workloads. The AMD chip also has a lower TDP of 28W versus Intel's 65W, making it the more power-efficient option for mobile devices. It supports ECC memory, which Intel does not, a factor for users requiring error-correcting memory in professional or server-like environments. The mobile market segment means it fits into laptops and compact systems where the Intel desktop part cannot be installed.