AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs Intel Xeon 638 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX and Intel Xeon 638 are both 16-core, 32-thread processors that occupy the same performance percentile, but they achieve parity through very different design philosophies. The data shows a near-tie in overall average benchmark scores — the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX posts an 81103 average against the Intel Xeon 638’s 80723, a gap of only 0.5% — yet the two chips win in opposite categories. The AMD part takes 6 head-to-head wins, while the Intel part claims 9, making the choice highly workload-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation appears in Cinebench results, where the two chips trade blows with massive margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Xeon 638 scores 47202 against the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX’s 32521, a 31.1% advantage for Intel. This is the single largest multi-core deficit for AMD in the entire comparison. However, the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells the opposite story: the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins with 5355 versus 4757, a 12.6% lead. The disparity suggests the Intel chip scales better with longer, more sustained workloads, while the AMD part excels in shorter bursts.

Single-core performance is not close. The Intel Xeon 638 dominates Cinebench R23 single-core with 6663 versus 1917, a 71.2% lead, and similarly wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 671 versus 292, a 56.5% margin. These are the two largest percentage gaps in the entire head-to-head set, indicating a fundamental architectural advantage in lightly-threaded performance for Intel. Yet the PassMark single-thread test flips the result: the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX scores 3874 versus 3670, a 5.6% win, showing that single-thread leadership depends heavily on the specific benchmark methodology.

In PassMark workloads, the Intel Xeon 638 wins the majority of categories. Data compression goes to Intel at 725818 versus 650984, a 10.3% lead. Extended instructions favor Intel at 56498 versus 47802, a 15.4% margin. Floating-point math is another Intel win at 144757 versus 113921, a 21.3% advantage. Prime number finding shows Intel ahead at 381 versus 251, a 34.1% gap. Physics simulation is heavily Intel-favored at 4704 versus 2104, a 55.3% difference. The PassMark multithread score also goes to Intel, 55651 versus 49731, a 10.6% lead.

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins the remaining PassMark categories. Data encryption goes to AMD at 39318 versus 36030, a 9.1% margin. Integer math is a narrow AMD win at 189221 versus 184884, a 2.3% edge. Random string sorting is essentially tied, with AMD at 75381 versus 74318, a 1.4% lead. The PassMark single-thread score, as noted, goes to AMD at 3874 versus 3670, a 5.6% margin. Across all 15 head-to-head benchmarks, Intel wins 9 and AMD wins 6, but the AMD wins tend to be smaller in magnitude than the Intel wins.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference is the microarchitecture. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX uses Zen 4 under the Dragon Range codename, part of the 8000 series, while the Intel Xeon 638 uses Granite Rapids architecture from the Xeon 600 generation. Both are built on a 5 nm process, but the foundries differ: TSMC fabricates the AMD chip, while Intel fabricates its own. The AMD chip is a mobile part with a 55 W TDP, whereas the Intel chip is a server/workstation part with a 180 W TDP, a 125 W difference that explains much of the performance divergence.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Xeon 638 has 112 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part carries more cache at every level, which contributes to its strong single-core and physics scores. The die size also reflects the gap: the Intel chip measures 598 mm², while the AMD chip uses two dies of 71 mm² each, totaling 142 mm². The AMD chip lists 13,140 million transistors, while the Intel chip’s transistor count is not provided in the data.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. Both support DDR5, but the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX runs dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Xeon 638 runs quad-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth — a 2.46x bandwidth advantage for Intel. ECC memory is supported on the Intel chip but not on the AMD chip. PCIe lanes also differ significantly: the AMD part provides 28 Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel part provides 80 Gen 5 lanes. The AMD chip includes integrated Radeon 610M graphics, whereas the Intel chip has no integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has an average benchmark score of 81103, slightly ahead of the Intel Xeon 638’s 80723, a margin of 0.5%. Both sit at the 95th percentile against all CPUs.

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon 638 win Cinebench R23 multi-core but lose Cinebench R15 multi-core?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Xeon 638 scores 47202 versus 32521 for AMD, a 31.1% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD wins 5355 versus 4757, a 12.6% margin. The reversal indicates the Intel chip’s advantage grows with longer sustained workloads, while the AMD chip performs better on shorter tests.

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

A: The Intel Xeon 638 leads by 71.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core (6663 versus 1917) and by 56.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core (671 versus 292). However, in PassMark single-thread, the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX leads by 5.6% (3874 versus 3670).

Q: What memory bandwidth difference exists between the two chips?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 has 204.8 GB/s bandwidth via quad-channel DDR5, while the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has 83.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5. The Intel chip also supports ECC memory, which the AMD chip does not.

Q: Which chip wins in data encryption and integer math?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins data encryption with 39318 versus 36030, a 9.1% margin, and integer math with 189221 versus 184884, a 2.3% margin. These are two of AMD’s six head-to-head wins.

Q: How does the TDP compare between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel Xeon 638 has a TDP of 180 W. This 125 W difference reflects the Intel chip’s server/workstation positioning versus AMD’s mobile segment targeting.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX | Intel Xeon 638 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 180 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FL1 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Granite Rapids |

| Codename | Dragon Range | Granite Rapids |

| Generation | Ryzen 9 (Zen 4 Dragon Range) | Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 71 mm² | 598 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 72 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | false | true |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes | Gen 5, 80 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 610M | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2025-04-22 | 2026-02-01 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $899 |

| Part Number | 100-000001849 | SA2DN |

Both chips have 16 cores and 32 threads, are unlocked, and are built on 5 nm process nodes. They also share the same 95th percentile ranking against all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon 638 wins in every scenario that stresses sustained multi-core throughput or heavy mathematical computation. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core lead of 31.1% makes it the clear choice for long rendering jobs, and its 21.3% advantage in floating-point math points to scientific computing strengths. The 55.3% lead in physics simulation suggests substantial gains in simulation workloads. Data compression at 10.3% ahead and extended instructions at 15.4% ahead further cement its position for server-side data processing. The 34.1% lead in prime number finding indicates better raw integer algorithmic performance despite losing the integer math test. Its quad-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes position it for high-throughput data environments.

The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX wins in specific, narrower categories. Its 12.6% Cinebench R15 multi-core win suggests it handles shorter rendering tasks more efficiently. The 9.1% data encryption win makes it better suited for cryptographic workloads. The 2.3% integer math win, while small, is consistent. The 1.4% random string sorting win and 5.6% PassMark single-thread win show it holds its own in certain memory-access patterns. Its 55 W TDP versus 180 W means it delivers these results at a fraction of the power draw, and its integrated Radeon 610M graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display tasks. The dual-die design with 13,140 million transistors on a smaller total die area suggests efficiency advantages.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on workload type. Choose the Intel Xeon 638 if the priority is maximum multi-core performance in sustained loads, as evidenced by its 31.1% Cinebench R23 lead, or if the workload involves floating-point math (21.3% lead), physics simulation (55.3% lead), or data compression (10.3% lead). Its quad-channel memory at 204.8 GB/s and 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes make it the superior platform for data-heavy server or workstation tasks. The 180 W TDP and $899 launch MSRP reflect its enterprise positioning.

Choose the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX if the workload involves data encryption (9.1% lead), integer math (2.3% lead), or random string sorting (1.4% lead), or if the application is shorter multi-core bursts where its 12.6% Cinebench R15 advantage applies. Its 55 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and the integrated Radeon 610M graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU. For mixed workloads, the overall average scores are nearly identical — 81103 versus 80723 — so the deciding factor should be which specific benchmark categories matter most. The AMD chip wins 6 head-to-head tests, the Intel chip wins 9, but the magnitude of Intel’s wins is generally larger, making the Xeon 638 the stronger choice for compute-heavy environments where power budget is not a constraint.