AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison between the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS and the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H presents a study in contrasting strengths. Across the seventeen recorded benchmark tests, the AMD part secures nine wins while Intel claims eight, yet the margins of victory are highly uneven. The single most decisive result favors the AMD chip: in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS scores 24,565 against Intel's 16,331, a 50.4% advantage. Even more striking is the Cinebench R23 single-core result, where AMD leads 3,468 to 2,044, a 69.7% gap. This pattern of extreme AMD dominance in Cinebench R23 does not carry over to the older Cinebench R15 and R20 tests. In R15 multi-core, Intel ekes out a narrow victory, 2,504 to 2,476, a 1.1% margin, while in R20 multi-core, AMD reverses the result with a 1% edge, 10,317 to 10,213. Single-core results in R15 and R20 also favor AMD, with 14.4% and 1% leads respectively.

The Passmark suite reveals a different competitive balance. Intel wins the floating-point math test decisively, scoring 84,067 against AMD's 58,965, a 29.9% gap. The physics test shows an even larger Intel margin, 2,697 to 1,389, which translates to a 48.5% difference. Intel also takes the find prime numbers test by a wide margin, 304 to 87, a 71.4% swing, and leads in single-thread performance by 10%, 4,180 to 3,762. However, AMD counters with substantial wins in integer math, 97,625 to 64,934 (50.3%), data compression, 343,952 to 276,539 (24.4%), and random string sorting, 41,867 to 34,082 (22.8%). The data encryption test goes to Intel by a modest 4.1%, 21,367 to 20,487, while extended instructions favor AMD by 6.4%, 25,434 to 23,906. The multithread test is nearly a dead heat, with Intel ahead by only 0.5%, 28,717 to 28,572.

These results indicate that the Cinebench R23 scores likely reflect a workload that leverages AMD's simultaneous multithreading and higher boost clock, while the Passmark physics and floating-point tests reward Intel's different microarchitecture design. The overall impression is not of a single superior chip, but of two processors that each excel in distinct computational domains.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the choice between these two mobile processors depends entirely on workload priorities. For users whose tasks involve Cinebench-style rendering or integer-heavy computations, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS is the clear selection. Its 50.4% lead in R23 multi-core and 50.3% lead in integer math are not marginal differences; they represent substantial performance advantages in those specific areas. The AMD chip also holds a strong edge in data compression, which could benefit file archiving and database operations.

Conversely, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the better option for physics simulations, floating-point calculations, and prime number generation. Its 48.5% lead in physics and 29.9% lead in floating-point math are equally significant. The Intel part's 10% advantage in single-thread performance, as measured by Passmark, suggests it may feel more responsive in lightly threaded applications. The data encryption result, a 4.1% Intel win, is too small to be decisive on its own. The average benchmark score, 39,325 for AMD versus 33,989 for Intel, gives AMD an overall edge, but this aggregate figure obscures the fact that Intel wins eight of the seventeen individual tests. The percentile ranking shows AMD at the 86th percentile of all CPUs and Intel at the 84th, a narrow gap that aligns with the split decision in the head-to-head tests.

Architecture Differences

The foundational architectures of these two processors diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The AMD chip integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also under the Panther Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Intel part, but the process node difference suggests a newer manufacturing technology.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, which indicates simultaneous multithreading is enabled. Intel provides 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning it operates without multithreading on its cores. This explains why AMD can achieve higher multi-threaded scores despite having fewer physical cores. The cache hierarchies also differ: AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core cache on Intel is notable, yet it does not translate into universal performance wins.

Memory support further separates the two. AMD uses DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and records a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. Intel uses LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but records a higher bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s and does not support ECC. The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD includes the Radeon 780M, while Intel includes the Arc B370. Both are mobile processors, but the AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP7, while Intel uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications reveal several points of divergence between the two processors. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power differs substantially: AMD is rated at 45 watts, Intel at 25 watts. This suggests the Intel part may be suited for thinner, more power-constrained chassis, though the database does not record any power consumption measurements. The process node differs, with AMD on 4 nm and Intel on 3 nm. The foundry also differs, TSMC for AMD and Intel for the Intel part. The socket types are different as noted, and the PCIe support differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The release dates are far apart, with AMD launching on 2024-04-15 and Intel on 2026-01-04. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are recorded as 100-000001316(FP7r2) and 100-000001387(FP7) for AMD, and SA4REQ9EW for Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD chip scores 24,565, which is 50.4% higher than Intel's 16,331.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, Intel wins the find prime numbers test by 71.4% (304 vs. 87) and the physics test by 48.5% (2,697 vs. 1,389).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Intel has 12 cores and 12 threads, while AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: Intel records a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s, while AMD records 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS supports ECC memory; the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8845HS wins in categories that involve heavy integer arithmetic, data manipulation, and rendering workloads. Its 50.3% lead in integer math and 24.4% lead in data compression point to strengths in general productivity tasks, database operations, and file handling. The 50.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core indicates that the chip delivers substantial performance in 3D rendering and other multi-threaded creative workloads. The 69.7% lead in R23 single-core and the 14.4% lead in R15 single-core suggest that AMD also holds an advantage in lightly threaded applications that rely on a single powerful core. The extended instructions result, a 6.4% AMD lead, reinforces the picture of a chip that handles complex instruction sets efficiently. The average benchmark score of 39,325 versus 33,989 confirms that, on aggregate, AMD delivers more performance across the recorded test suite.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in categories that emphasize floating-point arithmetic, physics simulation, and prime number computation. Its 29.9% lead in floating-point math and 48.5% lead in physics indicate strengths in scientific computing and simulation workloads. The 71.4% win in find prime numbers is exceptional and points to a particular efficiency in integer-heavy mathematical algorithms, despite losing the overall integer math test to AMD. The 10% lead in single-thread performance, as measured by Passmark, suggests that Intel's architecture handles some single-threaded tasks better than AMD, even though AMD wins the Cinebench single-core tests. The 4.1% lead in data encryption and the 0.5% lead in the multithread test are minor but consistent. The higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s may contribute to Intel's wins in memory-sensitive workloads, although the data does not directly confirm this link. The lower TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts also indicates that Intel may fit into different thermal envelopes, though the database records no thermal performance data.