AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS across nearly every workload category. Of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the AMD part takes 14 wins, while the Intel Core 5 330 manages only 3, two of which are essentially identical single-thread results.

The most dramatic gap appears in integer math. The Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS scores 103,390 in PassMark integer math, which is 210.9% ahead of the Intel Core 5 330's 33,258. This is the largest delta of any measured test. Data compression also shows a massive split: the AMD processor delivers 368,884 in PassMark data compression versus 145,287 for Intel, a 153.9% advantage. Random string sorting follows a similar pattern, with the AMD part scoring 44,668 against 17,771, a 151.4% lead.

Cinebench results reinforce the same conclusion. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS scores 25,165, while the Core 5 330 scores 13,150, a 91.4% gap. The identical 91.4% delta appears in R15 multi-core (2,536 vs 1,325), R20 multi-core (10,569 vs 5,523), and even the single-core variants of R15 (357 vs 186), R20 (1,491 vs 779), and R23 (3,552 vs 1,856). This consistent 91.4% delta across all three Cinebench versions indicates a structural performance difference, not a workload-specific anomaly.

The multi-threaded PassMark result shows a 96.4% lead for AMD (30,378 vs 15,471). Encryption performance gives AMD a 97% lead (21,820 vs 11,076). Extended instruction throughput shows AMD ahead by 116.4% (27,714 vs 12,808). Floating point math is comparatively closer but still strongly favors AMD: 63,490 versus 43,885, a 44.7% gap.

The Intel Core 5 330's wins are limited to two specific areas. In PassMark single-thread, the Intel part scores 4,088 versus AMD's 3,920, a 4.1% advantage. That same result appears twice in the dataset, once as passmark_single_thread and once as passmark_singlethread. The other Intel win is in find prime numbers, where Intel scores 114 versus AMD's 91, a 20.2% margin in Intel's favor. PassMark physics shows AMD ahead by 19.1% (1,430 vs 1,201), which is the smallest multi-core delta after the single-thread results.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS records an average benchmark score of 41,963, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 5 330 averages 18,345, which places it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How does the AMD processor compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS sits within 0.8% of its closest competitors. It is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-14700T (41,914), 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 (42,055), 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-12850HX (41,779), and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core 7 251TE (41,650).

Q: Is the Intel Core 5 330 competitive with other processors in its class?

A: The Core 5 330's average score of 18,345 puts it within 0.2% of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18,318) and the Intel Core 3 305 (18,302). It trails the Intel Core 7 360 (18,374) by 0.2% and matches the Intel Core i3-13100 (18,380) within 0.2%.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference between these two chips?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 leads in PassMark single-thread with a score of 4,088 versus 3,920 for the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS, a 4.1% advantage. However, in every Cinebench single-core test (R15, R20, R23), the AMD part leads by 91.4%, which suggests the PassMark single-thread test emphasizes different characteristics.

Q: Does the AMD processor support error-correcting memory?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 330 does not list ECC support.

Q: What is the release timeline for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS has a release date of 2024-04-15, while the Intel Core 5 330 carries a release date of 2026-04-15. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on Intel's own 3 nm process, with no transistor count or die size recorded.

The core configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. The Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. This alone explains much of the multi-core performance gap. The AMD processor also starts at a 4.00 GHz base clock and boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel part runs at a 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 5 330 has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD design's larger per-core cache and greater shared L3 capacity support its higher throughput in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory architecture shows another major divergence. The AMD part supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only on a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s. This 29.9 GB/s bandwidth difference directly impacts memory-bound operations.

PCIe lane counts differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS offers 20 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Core 5 330 provides only 6 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. This affects expandability for discrete GPUs and storage devices.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD processor uses the Radeon 780M, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. No benchmark data is available for either integrated GPU in the recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

The socket types are incompatible: the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel Core 5 330 uses Intel BGA 1516. Both are mobile-market parts, but their physical mounting differs.

Power consumption differs significantly. The AMD part has a 45 W TDP, while the Intel part has a 15 W TDP. This 30 W difference makes the Intel chip more suitable for fanless or ultra-thin designs, though the AMD part's higher power envelope supports its higher clock speeds and core count.

Clock speeds differ as described: AMD offers a 4.00 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost, Intel offers a 1.50 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost. The boost advantage for AMD is 0.60 GHz, but the base clock difference is 2.50 GHz.

Memory support: AMD lists DDR5 only, Intel lists DDR5 and LPDDR5X. AMD supports dual-channel, Intel supports single-channel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 59.7 GB/s for Intel. ECC memory is available on AMD but not on Intel.

PCIe lanes: AMD provides 20 Gen 4 lanes, Intel provides 6 Gen 4 lanes. Both are CPU-only lane counts.

The Intel Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309. No launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS.

Other differences: process node (4 nm TSMC for AMD, 3 nm Intel for Intel), transistor count (25,000 million for AMD, not recorded for Intel), die size (178 mm² for AMD, not recorded for Intel), part numbers (100-000001314 and 100-000001386 for AMD, SAE3G for Intel). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly positions the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS as the stronger performer in nearly all measured workloads. Its 88th percentile standing versus the Intel Core 5 330's 72nd percentile reflects the substantial average score gap: 41,963 versus 18,345. The AMD part leads by 91.4% in every Cinebench version, by 96.4% in PassMark multi-thread, and by more than 150% in data compression and random string sorting. For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, integer math, encryption, or compression, the Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS is the clear choice.

The Intel Core 5 330 offers advantages in specific scenarios. Its 4.1% single-thread lead in PassMark, combined with its 20.2% lead in prime number finding, indicates a niche strength in certain single-threaded or branch-heavy workloads. Its 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for power-constrained designs where the 45 W AMD part would not fit thermally. The single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe lanes limit its expandability, but for a compact mobile system, those constraints may be acceptable.

The data does not support any scenario where the Intel Core 5 330 outperforms the AMD part in general-purpose multi-core work. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13,150 for Intel is roughly half of AMD's 25,165. The PassMark multi-thread score of 15,471 versus 30,378 confirms the same relationship. Even in physics simulation, where Intel's 1,201 score is closest relative to AMD's 1,430, the 19.1% delta still favors AMD.

For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, the AMD part's dual-channel 89.6 GB/s configuration versus Intel's single-channel 59.7 GB/s provides a structural advantage that cannot be overcome by clock speed alone. The larger L3 cache (16 MB versus 6 MB) and per-core L2 allocation further support AMD in data-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core 5 330's single-thread PassMark victory (4,088 versus 3,920) is the only head-to-head result where Intel leads by a meaningful margin, and even that is just 4.1%. The Cinebench single-core results contradict it, showing AMD ahead by 91.4% in R15, R20, and R23. This inconsistency suggests the PassMark single-thread test measures a different workload mix than Cinebench's rendering-based single-core test.

The recorded data indicates that the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS is the superior processor for any application requiring sustained multi-core performance, high memory bandwidth, or extensive cache capacity. The Intel Core 5 330 is a lower-power alternative with a narrower performance profile, suitable for systems where the 15 W TDP and single-channel simplicity are more important than raw throughput. The 30 W TDP difference is the primary reason to consider the Intel part, not its benchmark scores.