AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235T Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS and Intel Core Ultra 5 235T present a fascinating study in contrasting design philosophies, with the data revealing a clear split between raw compute power and specialized task efficiency. The benchmark results show Intel securing 13 wins against AMD’s 4, yet the margins and specific workloads tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests. Both processors sit at the 86th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are closely matched overall, but their approaches to achieving that status differ dramatically.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the uniform 6.4% deficit AMD faces across the entire Cinebench suite. From Cinebench R15 multicore (2476 vs 2644) through R20 multicore (10317 vs 11017) and up to R23 multicore (24565 vs 26232), Intel wins every single time by the same margin. The single-core results mirror this exactly, with Intel leading 373 to 349 in R15, 1555 to 1456 in R20, and 3703 to 3468 in R23 (a slightly narrower 6.3% gap in the newest version). This consistency suggests a fundamental performance-per-clock advantage for Intel’s architecture rather than any workload-specific optimization.

However, the Passmark results reveal where AMD fights back. The Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS dominates data compression with a 16.6% lead (343952 vs 295100), a substantial margin that hints at superior memory subsystem efficiency for that workload. AMD also wins integer math by 15.9% (97625 vs 84244) and random string sorting by 18.3% (41867 vs 35377), both significant victories. Extended instructions favor AMD by 9.6% (25434 vs 23212), showing strength in specialized compute paths.

Intel’s Passmark victories are equally decisive in other areas. The floating point math score of 106546 versus AMD’s 58965 represents a massive 44.7% advantage, the largest single delta in the entire comparison. Prime number finding shows an even more extreme relative gap at 72.6% (318 vs 87), though the absolute scores are small. Physics simulation favors Intel by 35.6% (2157 vs 1389), and data encryption shows a 12.7% Intel edge (23457 vs 20487). The multithread score goes to Intel at 30918 vs 28572 (7.6% lead), while single-thread performance shows Intel ahead by 13.3% (4339 vs 3762).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, uses a 4nm process from TSMC with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Intel’s Arrow Lake-S, by contrast, uses a more advanced 3nm TSMC node but packs fewer transistors — 17,800 million — across a larger 243 mm² die. This transistor density difference is noteworthy: AMD fits more transistors into less space, yet Intel achieves higher benchmark scores.

Core configurations tell a different story. AMD fields 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel offers 14 cores but only 14 threads, indicating a hybrid architecture without hyperthreading. The cache hierarchy diverges sharply: AMD provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core with 16 MB shared L3, while Intel offers 192 KB L1 and 3 MB L2 per core with 24 MB shared L3. Intel’s larger per-core caches likely contribute to its single-thread advantage.

The memory bandwidth figures favor Intel at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 89.6 GB/s, both on dual-channel DDR5. Intel also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while AMD remains on PCIe Gen 4 with the same lane count. Notably, AMD supports ECC memory while Intel does not. The integrated graphics differ completely: AMD uses Radeon 780M, while Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU. Process nodes, foundries, and die sizes all favor AMD’s density, yet Intel’s newer 3nm node and larger cache configuration prove more effective in most tests.

Where Each One Wins

The data suggests AMD’s Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the choice for specific throughput-oriented tasks. Its 16.6% lead in data compression and 18.3% advantage in random string sorting indicate strength in data manipulation workloads that rely on efficient memory access patterns. The 15.9% integer math victory and 9.6% extended instructions win reinforce this profile. For users processing large datasets, performing string operations, or running integer-heavy calculations, AMD’s architecture delivers measurable benefits.

Intel’s Core Ultra 5 235T dominates a broader range of scenarios. The 44.7% floating point math advantage is enormous, suggesting superiority in scientific computing, 3D rendering, and any workload relying heavily on FPU throughput. The 72.6% prime number finding lead, while small in absolute terms, indicates raw computational efficiency. Physics simulation at 35.6% ahead makes Intel the better choice for simulation and gaming physics. The consistent 6.4% Cinebench advantage across all versions positions Intel as the stronger all-round renderer, while the 13.3% single-thread lead benefits everyday responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate the Intel Core Ultra 5 235T is the superior processor for most users. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all single-thread tests, and the multithread Passmark score. Its closest rival in the database is the Intel Core i5-14500 at a 0.1% delta, placing it in strong company. The 14-core configuration without hyperthreading proves effective, and the 3nm process delivers tangible benefits.

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS remains compelling for specific niches. Its 4 wins all come in data-oriented tasks: compression, integer math, random string sorting, and extended instructions. For workloads dominated by these operations, the Ryzen’s 15.9% to 18.3% advantages could translate to real productivity gains. Its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840HS at a 0.7% delta, shows how close the 8845HS sits to its sibling. The 8-core/16-thread configuration and 4nm process make it an efficient choice for mobile applications, given its 45W TDP versus Intel’s 65W.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235T wins all single-thread tests, leading by 13.3% in Passmark single-thread (4339 vs 3762) and 6.3-6.4% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Intel wins Cinebench multicore tests by 6.4% and Passmark multithread by 7.6% (30918 vs 28572), despite AMD having 16 threads versus Intel’s 14.

Q: Where does AMD have a clear advantage?

A: AMD wins data compression by 16.6% (343952 vs 295100), random string sorting by 18.3% (41867 vs 35377), integer math by 15.9% (97625 vs 84244), and extended instructions by 9.6% (25434 vs 23212).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between them?

A: The largest delta is in Passmark find prime numbers, where Intel leads by 72.6% (318 vs 87). The next largest is floating point math at 44.7% (106546 vs 58965).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory technology?

A: Both support DDR5 with dual-channel memory buses, but Intel offers higher bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s versus AMD’s 89.6 GB/s. AMD supports ECC memory while Intel does not.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: AMD’s average benchmark score is 39325, while Intel’s is 38561, a difference of 764 points. Both sit at the 86th percentile among all CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS | Intel Core Ultra 5 235T |

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

| Cores | 8 | 14 |

| Threads | 16 | 14 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

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

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 243 mm² |

| 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 | 2024-04-15 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $247 |

| Part Number | 100-000001316(FP7r2), 100-000001387(FP7) | SRQES |