AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a one-sided contest. Across all eleven shared Passmark workloads, the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX takes the win, with the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H failing to secure a single victory. The margin, however, is far from uniform. The most dominant result for AMD appears in integer math, where the Ryzen 9 9850HX scores 172,943 against the Intel part's 64,934, a delta of 166.3%. This suggests the Zen 5 architecture has a substantial advantage in workloads that depend on heavy arithmetic logic and branch handling.

Data compression follows a similar pattern. The AMD chip records 662,381 in the Passmark data compression test, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H manages 276,539. That is a 139.5% lead for AMD, indicating that the Ryzen part can process large data streams with considerably higher throughput. Extended instructions also skew heavily toward AMD, with a score of 53,817 versus 23,906, a 125.1% difference. This test often exercises vector and SIMD-style instructions, where the wider execution resources of the Zen 5 core appear to pay off.

Random string sorting, another memory and cache sensitive workload, shows a 105.9% advantage for the AMD processor. The Ryzen 9 9850HX records 70,175, while the Intel chip trails at 34,082. Multithreaded performance, which is a core indicator for heavily parallel tasks, gives AMD a clear 80.1% lead: 51,722 versus 28,717. The 24 threads of the AMD part versus the 12 threads of the Intel part likely explain a large share of this gap, but the per-thread efficiency also matters.

Not every result is a landslide. The closest contest appears in the find prime numbers test, where AMD scores 323 and Intel scores 304, a modest 6.3% difference. Single-thread performance also remains relatively close, with AMD at 4,461 and Intel at 4,180, a 6.7% edge for the Ryzen. Floating point math shows a more decisive split: 115,062 for AMD versus 84,067 for Intel, a 36.9% margin. Data encryption lands between those extremes, with AMD ahead by 50.4% (32,139 versus 21,367). Physics simulation, which often reflects a mix of integer and floating point work, gives AMD a 13.2% lead: 3,054 versus 2,697.

The aggregate benchmark score confirms the overall picture. The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX posts an average of 106,413, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H sits at 33,989. That places the AMD part in the 97th percentile of all CPUs in the database, whereas the Intel chip lands in the 84th percentile. Looking at the nearest rivals for each part clarifies the positioning further. The Ryzen 9 9850HX trades blows with workstation-class Xeon parts: it is 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon w7-3555, 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6521P, and 3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 8324P. Only the Xeon w7-2595X edges it out, by 2.1%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, in contrast, competes with mainstream mobile and entry server chips. It sits 0.3% behind the Core Ultra 7 165H, 0.3% ahead of the Core i7-12800HX, 0.4% ahead of the Xeon 6353P, and 0.7% behind the EPYC 4244P.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies, even though both have 12 cores on paper. The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX uses the Zen 5 microarchitecture, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The codename is Fire Range, and it belongs to the 9000 series. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's own 3 nm node, with the Panther Lake-H generation label from the Core Ultra Series 3.

Thread count is a critical divergence. The AMD chip supports 24 threads from its 12 cores, meaning each core can handle two simultaneous threads. The Intel chip offers 12 threads from its 12 cores, with no simultaneous multithreading. This alone explains a significant portion of the multithreaded benchmark gap. Clock speeds also favor AMD: the base clock is 3.00 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and the boost clock reaches 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz.

Cache hierarchy differs substantially. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a large 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the AMD side, combined with the higher clock rates, helps explain the strong showing in cache-sensitive tests like random string sorting and data compression.

Memory support also splits the two. The Ryzen 9 9850HX uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher recorded bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s. Interestingly, the Intel part has a bandwidth advantage on paper, yet the AMD part still wins the memory-heavy Passmark workloads. This suggests that latency, cache capacity, or memory controller efficiency may play a larger role than raw bandwidth in these specific tests.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are also distinct: the AMD chip uses the Radeon 610M, while the Intel chip uses the Arc B370. The Intel part allows no multiplier unlocking, whereas the AMD part is unlocked. The AMD processor is built on a 2x 70.6 mm² die configuration with 16,630 million transistors; the Intel part does not have transistor or die size data in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX has 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 threads, both from 12 cores.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta appears in integer math, where the AMD chip leads by 166.3%, scoring 172,943 versus 64,934.

Q: Is the Intel chip ever faster in any benchmark?

A: No. Across all eleven shared Passmark tests, the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX wins every single one. The Intel part records zero wins.

Q: How close is single-thread performance?

A: The AMD part leads by 6.7% in the Passmark single-thread test, with scores of 4,461 versus 4,180. This is one of the narrowest margins in the comparison.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The AMD processor supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel processor supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s. Despite the Intel part having a higher bandwidth rating, the AMD part wins the memory-sensitive benchmarks.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX sits in the 97th percentile, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H sits in the 84th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Fire Range codename from the 9000 series, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Panther Lake from the Core Ultra Series 3. The AMD part is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC; the Intel part uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD chip has 24 threads, a 3.00 GHz base clock, a 5.20 GHz boost clock, and a 55 W TDP. The Intel chip has 12 threads, a 1.90 GHz base clock, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, and a 25 W TDP.

Cache configurations differ across all levels. The AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support also diverges: DDR5 for AMD versus LPDDR5X for Intel, with ECC only on the AMD side. PCIe lanes favor AMD at 28 Gen 5 lanes versus 4 Gen 5 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics differ as well: Radeon 610M for AMD versus Arc B370 for Intel. The socket is AMD Socket FL1 for the Ryzen part and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra part. The AMD processor is multiplier unlocked; the Intel processor is locked. Release dates are recorded as 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2026-01-04 for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is not about performance categories but rather about workload intensity. The AMD part is the clear choice for any application that stresses integer arithmetic, data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, or multithreaded throughput. Its 24 threads and 64 MB L3 cache make it well suited for compile workloads, database processing, scientific simulation, and content creation tasks that scale across cores. The 97th percentile ranking places it near the top of the entire CPU hierarchy, alongside workstation Xeon parts.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, despite losing every head-to-head test, still has a role in the database. Its 84th percentile ranking and 25 W TDP indicate a much lower power envelope, which is relevant for thin-and-light mobile designs where thermal headroom is limited. The higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s with LPDDR5X could benefit certain memory-streaming workloads, even though the Passmark tests do not show that advantage. The Arc B370 integrated graphics also provide a different GPU option compared to the Radeon 610M, which matters for systems relying on integrated graphics only. The Intel part competes with mainstream mobile chips like the Core Ultra 7 165H and Core i7-12800HX, placing it in a much lower performance tier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX outperforms the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H in every recorded benchmark, with deltas ranging from 6.3% to 166.3%. The average benchmark score of 106,413 versus 33,989 reflects a processor that occupies a different performance class entirely. The Ryzen part sits alongside workstation Xeon processors in the nearest rivals list, while the Intel part sits among mainstream mobile parts.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile package, the AMD Ryzen 9 9850HX is the only choice supported by the recorded data. Its 24 threads, 5.20 GHz boost clock, and 64 MB L3 cache deliver results that the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H cannot approach. The Intel part offers a lower TDP and higher memory bandwidth, but the benchmark results do not translate that into any performance win. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H may be appropriate for systems prioritizing power efficiency over raw speed, but the database shows no scenario where it beats the AMD part in the tested workloads.