AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS and the Intel Core 7 251E. The head-to-head table is empty, and neither processor has a recorded score in any shared workload. This means a definitive side-by-side performance ranking cannot be established from recorded measurements alone.

What the data does show is that the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a substantial set of standalone benchmark scores, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database at all. The AMD part's average benchmark score is 39,325, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs tracked. The Intel part sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of zero, a placeholder value reflecting the absence of measured data rather than actual performance.

For the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS, the recorded scores span multiple test suites. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,476 in multi-core and 349 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 10,317 multi-core and 1,456 single-core. Cinebench R23 shows 24,565 multi-core and 3,468 single-core. PassMark results include 343,952 in data compression, 20,487 in data encryption, 25,434 in extended instructions, 87 in prime number finding, 58,965 in floating point math, 97,625 in integer math, 28,572 in multithread, 1,389 in physics, 41,867 in random string sorting, and 3,762 in single-thread tests.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no entries in the benchmark array. Without measured scores, no comparative percentages or deltas can be computed. The nearest rivals list for the AMD processor references four other CPUs, all with average scores close to 39,325: the AMD EPYC 4245P at 39,215 (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450 at 39,485 (0.4% lower), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS at 39,603 (0.7% lower), and the Intel Core i7-13700F at 39,009 (0.8% higher). These deltas are small, indicating the Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS sits in a tightly clustered performance band among its nearest competitors. The Intel Core 7 251E appears in no such rival list.

The absence of Intel benchmark data means the only quantitative comparison available is architectural and specification-based, not performance-based. The AMD processor's scores establish its capability, but the Intel processor's scores remain unmeasured in this database.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the only one of the two with verified benchmark scores. The Intel Core 7 251E has no scores, so any conclusion about which processor is faster must be qualified: the database cannot confirm a performance advantage for either part.

Based on the available data, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the processor with demonstrated multi-core and single-core results. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,565 and single-core score of 3,468, along with its PassMark multithread score of 28,572 and single-thread score of 3,762, provide a concrete performance profile. Its 86th percentile ranking across all CPUs indicates it sits above the median in the database's overall distribution.

The Intel Core 7 251E, by contrast, has no recorded benchmarks and a 50th percentile placeholder. Its specifications suggest a different design, but the data does not allow verification of how those specifications translate into measured performance. The verdict from the data is straightforward: choose the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS if verified benchmark results are the priority, since it is the only part with scores in the database. Choose the Intel Core 7 251E only if its architectural characteristics, such as a higher core count and newer PCIe generation, are more important than recorded performance, which the database cannot currently validate.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Hawk Point, part of the 8000 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename under the Core 7 generation, built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a 257 mm² die size. The transistor count for the Intel part is not recorded.

The AMD processor has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel processor has 24 cores and 32 threads, a substantially higher count on both measures. Cache configurations differ as well: the AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Both use dual-channel memory, but the AMD part supports DDR5 only, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both have a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s and both support ECC memory.

The integrated graphics differ: the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS uses Radeon 780M, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses UHD Graphics 770. The PCIe capabilities differ as well: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. The market segments also diverge: the AMD part is classified as Mobile, while the Intel part is classified as Desktop.

Clock speeds show a notable contrast. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The TDP values differ as well: 45 watts for the AMD part versus 65 watts for the Intel part. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several recorded specification fields. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The base clock is 3.80 GHz for the AMD part and 2.10 GHz for the Intel part. The boost clock is 5.10 GHz for the AMD part and 5.60 GHz for the Intel part. TDP is 45 watts versus 65 watts.

The socket differs: AMD Socket FP7 for the AMD part, Intel Socket 1700 for the Intel part. The process node is 4 nm for AMD and 10 nm for Intel. The die size is 178 mm² for AMD and 257 mm² for Intel. Cache sizes differ per core: L1 is 64 KB per core for AMD and 80 KB per core for Intel; L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD and 2 MB per core for Intel; L3 is 16 MB shared for AMD and 36 MB shared for Intel.

Memory support differs: the AMD part supports DDR5 only, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. PCIe generation and lanes differ: Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD, Gen 5 with 16 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 780M for AMD, UHD Graphics 770 for Intel. The market segment differs: Mobile for AMD, Desktop for Intel. The release dates differ as well: 2024-04-15 for the AMD part, 2025-01-12 for the Intel part. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $384; the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. The Intel part has a part number of SRQDUQ657, while the AMD part lists two part numbers: 100-000001316 (FP7r2) and 100-000001387 (FP7).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, and the Intel Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E support DDR4 memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS supports DDR5 only.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 7 251E is built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has an average benchmark score of 39,325, placing it in the 86th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded average benchmark score in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS wins in every category where recorded data exists, simply because it is the only processor with benchmark scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,565 and single-core score of 3,468, along with PassMark scores such as 28,572 in multithread and 3,762 in single-thread, establish a measurable performance baseline. The Intel Core 7 251E has zero recorded benchmark scores, so it cannot be said to win any measured category in the database.

From a specification standpoint, the Intel Core 7 251E shows advantages in core count (24 versus 8), thread count (32 versus 16), L3 cache (36 MB versus 16 MB), PCIe generation (Gen 5 versus Gen 4), and boost clock (5.60 GHz versus 5.10 GHz). These specifications suggest potential strengths in heavily threaded workloads and newer I/O connectivity, but the database lacks scores to confirm this. The AMD part has advantages in base clock (3.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz), lower TDP (45 watts versus 65 watts), and a smaller die size (178 mm² versus 257 mm²). Its mobile classification and lower TDP indicate suitability for portable systems, while the Intel part's desktop classification suggests a different use case.

The AMD processor's benchmark profile does show specific strengths. Its PassMark data compression score of 343,952 and integer math score of 97,625 indicate strong throughput in those operations. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24,565 places it ahead of the database median given its 86th percentile ranking. The Intel processor, without scores, cannot be compared on these metrics.

For users prioritizing verified performance, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the clear choice from the data. For users prioritizing raw core count, larger cache, or PCIe Gen 5 support, the Intel Core 7 251E offers those specifications, but the database does not yet show how they perform. The AMD part also offers a lower TDP and a mobile form factor, while the Intel part is desktop-oriented with a higher TDP. Each processor has a distinct specification profile, but only the AMD part has measured benchmark results to back its positioning.