AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 125H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins 5 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H takes 10. But the margins tell a more interesting story than the raw win count.

Intel's biggest advantage comes in floating-point math, where it scores 51670 against AMD's 39662, a 23.2% lead. Physics simulation shows an even larger gap at 24.7%, with Intel posting 1439 versus 1084. Data encryption also favors Intel substantially: 14251 against 11212, a 21.3% margin. These are the kinds of workloads where Intel's wider core count and higher thread count (18 versus 12) provide a structural advantage.

The multi-core Cinebench results reinforce that pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 2021.5 against AMD's 1743, a 13.8% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows a narrower 9.9% gap, with Intel at 12804.5 and AMD at 11534. PassMark multi-thread follows the same trend: Intel leads 21100 to 19215, an 8.9% margin. Integer math, random string sorting, data compression, and find prime numbers all go to Intel with margins ranging from 6.2% to 15.9%.

AMD's wins are concentrated in single-thread performance and extended instruction efficiency. The R15 single-core test shows AMD at 276 versus Intel's 241, a 14.5% advantage. R23 single-core gives AMD 1802 against 1647.5, a 9.4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a 10.6% margin: 3758 for AMD, 3399 for Intel. The most interesting AMD win is in extended instructions, where it scores 15721 versus Intel's 13749, a 14.3% advantage that suggests better optimization for vectorized or specialized instruction paths.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split is remarkably consistent. Intel Core Ultra 5 125H dominates in tasks that scale with core count and parallel throughput. Floating-point math, physics simulation, data encryption, integer math, data compression, random string sorting, and multi-threaded rendering all favor Intel. The 14 cores and 18 threads provide more parallel execution resources, and the benchmark results show that advantage translates directly into higher scores across nearly every throughput-oriented test.

AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins where single-thread efficiency matters most. The 14.5% margin in Cinebench R15 single-core and 9.4% in R23 single-core indicate stronger per-core performance. PassMark single-thread confirms this with a 10.6% lead. The extended instructions result is particularly notable: AMD leads by 14.3% despite having fewer cores, which suggests the Zen 5 architecture handles certain instruction patterns more efficiently than Meteor Lake.

For real-world usage, this suggests Intel handles video rendering, physics-based simulations, encryption workloads, and general productivity multitasking better. AMD would be preferable for lightly-threaded applications, legacy software with poor multi-threading, and workloads that leverage extended instruction sets like AVX-512 or similar specialized paths.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD uses Zen 5 architecture on Krackan Point, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The chip measures 195 mm² and features 6 cores with 12 threads. Intel's Meteor Lake uses a 7 nm Intel process with 14 cores and 18 threads, though the die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. AMD allocates 80 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 112 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, but crucially offers 18 MB of shared L3, more than double AMD's allocation. This larger L3 cache likely contributes to Intel's strong multi-threaded performance, as more working data can stay on-chip.

Clock speeds tell another part of the story. AMD has a 2.00 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 3.60 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. AMD's higher boost clock aligns with its single-thread wins, while Intel's higher base clock suggests better sustained performance across all cores under load.

Both use dual-channel memory with identical 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with ECC memory enabled; Intel supports DDR5 but ECC is not available. PCIe connectivity differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while Intel provides Gen 5. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon 840M, Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG 96EU.

The socket and packaging are completely incompatible: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses BGA 2049. Both are mobile processors with 28 W TDP, active production status, and locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward recommendation based on workload priorities. For users who need maximum parallel throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 125H is the stronger choice. Its 10 benchmark wins include the most significant margins: 23.2% in floating-point math, 24.7% in physics, and 21.3% in encryption. These are not marginal differences; they represent substantial performance advantages in compute-heavy tasks.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 is the choice for single-thread-sensitive applications. Its 14.5% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core and 10.6% in PassMark single-thread show clear per-core superiority. The extended instructions win at 14.3% also suggests AMD handles specialized instruction workloads more efficiently.

The overall average benchmark scores are close: AMD averages 27932 with an 80th percentile ranking, while Intel averages 27507 with a 79th percentile. AMD's nearest rival comparison shows it essentially tied with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D and Ryzen 7 6800U, while Intel sits near the Ryzen 7 5800 and Core i5-12600K. Both processors occupy similar performance tiers despite their different architectures.

For mobile buyers, the 28 W TDP on both means comparable power envelopes. AMD's 4 nm process is more advanced than Intel's 7 nm, which may offer efficiency benefits not fully captured in raw benchmark scores. However, the recorded data shows Intel winning more tests with larger margins, so users prioritizing raw compute should lean Intel. Users prioritizing responsiveness in single-threaded applications or specialized instruction workloads should lean AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 125H wins all multi-threaded comparisons. It leads by 13.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 9.9% in R23 multi-core, and 8.9% in PassMark multi-thread.

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 wins all single-thread tests. It leads by 14.5% in Cinebench R15 single-core, 9.4% in R23 single-core, and 10.6% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: How do their cache configurations differ?

A: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Intel has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both support dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with ECC, while Intel supports DDR5 without ECC.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: AMD has a 2.00 GHz base clock and 4.80 GHz boost clock. Intel has a 3.60 GHz base clock and 4.50 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Intel has 14 cores and 18 threads. AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 340 | Intel Core Ultra 5 125H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 14 |

| Threads | 12 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2049 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Meteor Lake |

| Codename | Krackan Point | Meteor Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 195 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 112 KB per core |

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

| L3 Cache | 8 MB | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 5 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 840M | Arc Xe-LPG 96EU |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2023-12-13 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $375 |

| Part Number | 100-000001600 | SRMZ4 |