AMD Ryzen 9 270 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 270 records an average benchmark score of 40246, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989, in the 84th percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 270 scores 26438 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 61.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's 16331. This is the largest multi-core delta in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any single-threaded tests?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins PassMark single-thread with a score of 4180, which is 9.5% higher than the AMD Ryzen 9 270's 3784. However, the AMD chip wins every Cinebench single-core test.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 9 270 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading, giving it more threads than cores.

Q: What are the power targets of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 270 has a TDP of 45, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25. The thermal envelope differs by 20 units.

Q: Which processor wins more individual benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 270 wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins 6.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 270 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on Intel's 3 nm process, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Core configurations differ substantially. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel chip has 12 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD part relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores, while the Intel part runs one thread per core.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. The AMD Ryzen 9 270 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 on the Intel side may help its single-thread PassMark result, while the AMD chip's higher boost clock may drive its Cinebench single-core wins.

Memory support also differs. The AMD chip uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, a 52.4% higher bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity differs: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics are different as well. The AMD Ryzen 9 270 carries a Radeon 780M, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H carries an Arc B370. Both are mobile processors, with the AMD on AMD Socket FP8 and the Intel on Intel BGA 2540. The release dates differ by roughly one year: the AMD chip was released on 2025-01-05, the Intel chip on 2026-01-04.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen 9 270 dominates Cinebench results across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2664 versus 2504, a 6.4% win. In R15 single-core, it scores 376 versus 305, a 23.3% margin. Cinebench R20 shows a 11103 versus 10213 multi-core result (8.7% ahead) and a 1567 versus 1441 single-core result (also 8.7% ahead). The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23, where the AMD chip scores 3732 against the Intel chip's 2044, a 82.6% advantage. The R23 multi-core gap is 61.9% in favor of AMD, with scores of 26438 and 16331.

PassMark results split more evenly. The AMD Ryzen 9 270 wins data compression with 351398 versus 276539, a 27.1% margin. It also wins extended instructions (26729 versus 23906, 11.8% ahead), integer math (98266 versus 64934, 51.3% ahead), multithread (29089 versus 28717, 1.3% ahead), and random string sorting (42819 versus 34082, 25.6% ahead).

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H counters with strong results in several specialized workloads. It wins data encryption with 21367 versus 20852, a 2.4% margin. It wins find prime numbers by a wide margin: 304 versus 88, a 71.1% lead. Floating point math goes to Intel with 84067 versus 60122, a 28.5% advantage. Physics favors Intel with 2697 versus 1365, a 49.4% margin. PassMark single-thread also goes to Intel with 4180 versus 3784, a 9.5% lead. The same result appears under the passmark_singlethread test name with identical scores.

The benchmark wins tally 11 for AMD and 6 for Intel. The AMD chip's wins are concentrated in the Cinebench suite and several PassMark integer-oriented tasks. The Intel chip's wins are in encryption, prime number finding, floating point math, physics, and single-thread PassMark.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Ryzen 9 270 as the stronger all-around processor for most workloads. Its average benchmark score of 40246 sits 18.4% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's 33989. It holds the higher percentile rank at 87 versus 84. It wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench iteration, which reflects substantial multi-core and single-core rendering performance.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is not without strengths. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4180 is higher, and it wins floating point math, physics, encryption, and prime number tests by significant margins. Its lower TDP of 25 suggests a more power-conscious design, though the database does not record measured power consumption. The Intel chip also offers higher memory bandwidth at 136.5 GB/s.

For users prioritizing rendering, integer math, and general multi-threaded throughput, the AMD Ryzen 9 270 is the clear choice based on the recorded scores. For workloads dominated by floating point math, prime number searches, or physics simulations, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H delivers superior results in those specific tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 9 270 | Intel Core Ultra 5 338H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base clock | 4.00 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 45 | 25 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 136.5 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 780M | Arc B370 |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | 100-000001836 | SA4REQ9EW |

Both processors are unlocked for overclocking? The database records multiplierUnlocked as false for both. Both lack ECC memory support. Both target the mobile market segment and are listed as active production parts. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 270 wins in all Cinebench tests, which makes it the preferred part for rendering workloads that rely on those benchmarks. Its 61.9% R23 multi-core lead and 82.6% R23 single-core lead indicate a decisive advantage in both heavily threaded and lightly threaded rendering tasks. The AMD chip also leads in PassMark integer math by 51.3%, data compression by 27.1%, random string sorting by 25.6%, extended instructions by 11.8%, and multithread by 1.3%. These results point to strong performance in general productivity, code compilation, compression, and mixed integer workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in PassMark single-thread with a 9.5% margin, suggesting an advantage in lightly threaded applications that are not render-based, such as certain legacy or latency-sensitive software. Its floating point math score of 84067 is 28.5% higher, which indicates strength in scientific computing, simulations, and other FP-heavy tasks. The physics score of 2697 is 49.4% higher, suitable for physics simulation workloads. The prime number finding result of 304 versus 88 shows a 71.1% lead, which may benefit cryptography-related or number-theoretic computations. The encryption score of 21367 is 2.4% higher, a modest but consistent edge in encryption workloads.

For users who need a balanced mobile processor with high rendering throughput and broad integer performance, the AMD Ryzen 9 270 delivers more wins. For users who prioritize floating point math, physics simulation, or single-thread PassMark performance, and who operate within a 25 TDP envelope, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H offers the better recorded results in those specific categories.