AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Processor 300?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do the two processors differ in their process technology?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Q: What are the base clock speeds of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz, while the Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher L3 cache capacity?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 16 MB of L3 cache, whereas the Intel Processor 300 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor include?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 includes a Radeon 890M. The Intel Processor 300 includes UHD Graphics 710.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 targets the mobile market. The Intel Processor 300 is designed for desktop platforms.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and Intel Processor 300 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD chip uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation. This architecture employs a hybrid of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores, allowing the processor to balance high-performance and efficiency-oriented core types within a 12-core, 24-thread configuration. The 4 nm TSMC process node gives it a modern, dense transistor layout on a 233 mm² die.

Intel's Processor 300, in contrast, uses the older Raptor Lake architecture and Raptor Lake-S codename. It is a dual-core, four-thread desktop part built on Intel's 10 nm process, with a die size of 163 mm². The Intel chip does not list a boost clock in the database, so its maximum frequency is not recorded, whereas the AMD part boosts up to 5.10 GHz. Base clocks tell a different story: Intel starts at 3.90 GHz, which is substantially higher than AMD's 2.00 GHz base.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. Both processors claim 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 allocation separates them: AMD provides 1 MB per core, while Intel offers 1.25 MB per core. The L3 cache is a major split, with AMD holding 16 MB versus Intel's 6 MB shared pool. This gives the AMD chip significantly more aggregate cache for multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Intel's Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. PCIe connectivity differs as well: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Both disable ECC memory support.

The TDP ratings show a clear efficiency gap: AMD's mobile chip is rated at 28 W, while Intel's desktop chip draws 46 W. The AMD processor uses the AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part is part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation, and the Intel part belongs to the Intel Processor generation under Raptor Lake.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data covers only the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, since the Intel Processor 300 has no entries in the database for any test. This means the analysis of wins is one-sided, but the available measurements still indicate where the AMD chip excels. The AMD part shows strong multi-threaded performance, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,812 and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 3,334. These results reflect the advantage of having 12 cores and 24 threads.

Single-core performance for AMD is also solid, with a Geekbench single-core score of 2,084 and a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,988. The PassMark single-thread score of 3,867 confirms that the Zen 5 architecture delivers competitive per-thread throughput despite the lower base clock.

In specialized tasks, the AMD chip shows particular strengths. The PassMark data compression score of 404,918 and random string sorting score of 44,552 suggest it handles data manipulation and sorting workloads well. The floating-point math score of 75,153 and integer math score of 121,754 indicate strong arithmetic processing capabilities. The extended instructions score of 29,269 points to good SIMD or vectorized workload performance.

The Intel Processor 300, with no recorded benchmarks, cannot be assessed for wins in any category. Its dual-core, four-thread design with a high base clock may excel in lightly threaded tasks, but the database provides no measurements to support that claim. The AMD part, by contrast, has a clear profile: it wins heavily in multi-threaded and parallel workloads, and it holds its own in single-threaded tests based on the recorded data.

The Verdict

The data in the database points decisively to the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 for workloads that demand parallel processing. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration, combined with a 16 MB L3 cache and 28 W TDP, makes it a capable mobile processor for multi-threaded applications. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21,812 and PassMark multi-thread score of 32,916 are strong indicators of its throughput advantage.

The Intel Processor 300, with no benchmark scores recorded, cannot be compared numerically. Its 2-core, 4-thread layout and 46 W TDP suggest it targets basic desktop tasks, but the database offers no evidence of its performance. The AMD chip holds a percentile rank of 89 among all CPUs, while Intel's rank is 50, further emphasizing the gap in recorded capability.

For users who rely on multi-core performance, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is the only option with data to support a choice. Its single-thread scores are also respectable, so it does not sacrifice per-core speed entirely. The Intel Processor 300 might serve simple, low-thread desktop workloads, but without benchmark data, its suitability remains unverified. The database shows no head-to-head benchmark results, and the wins counter lists zero for both parts, so any comparison must rely solely on the AMD measurements and the architectural differences.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Processor 300 uses 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for AMD and 3.90 GHz for Intel, with only AMD listing a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. TDP ratings are 28 W for AMD and 46 W for Intel.

Sockets and architectures differ: AMD uses Socket FP8 with Zen 5 and Strix Point, while Intel uses Socket 1700 with Raptor Lake and Raptor Lake-S. Process nodes are 4 nm for AMD (TSMC) and 10 nm for Intel (Intel). Die sizes are 233 mm² for AMD and 163 mm² for Intel.

Cache configurations vary: L1 is 80 KB per core for both, L2 is 1 MB per core for AMD versus 1.25 MB per core for Intel, and L3 is 16 MB for AMD versus 6 MB shared for Intel. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X for AMD, plus DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD, with no figure recorded for Intel. PCIe versions are Gen 4 for AMD and Gen 5 for Intel, both with 16 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics are Radeon 890M for AMD and UHD Graphics 710 for Intel. Market segments are mobile for AMD and desktop for Intel. Release dates are June 30, 2024 for AMD and January 7, 2024 for Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $82, while AMD has no recorded MSRP. Part numbers are 100-000001682 for AMD and SRN3J for Intel. Both processors have locked multipliers and do not support ECC memory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and the Intel Processor 300. The Intel part has an empty benchmark array, and the wins counter shows zero for both sides. This absence of direct comparison data means the only numerical analysis available comes from the AMD chip's standalone scores.

For the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, the largest recorded wins are internal to its own benchmark suite. The PassMark data compression score of 404,918 dwarfs its other integer-heavy results, showing a particular strength in compression algorithms. The integer math score of 121,754 and floating-point math score of 75,153 indicate robust arithmetic throughput. The PassMark multi-thread score of 32,916 confirms scaling across its 24 threads.

Single-threaded scores for AMD are consistent: PassMark single-thread at 3,867, Geekbench single-core at 2,084, and Cinebench R23 single-core at 1,988. These numbers suggest the Zen 5 cores deliver efficient per-thread execution. The Cinebench R15 single-core score of 301 is a lower absolute figure due to the older test version, but it follows the same relative pattern.

In the absence of Intel scores, the comparison rests on architectural differences. The AMD chip's 12-core advantage is its primary differentiator, and the recorded benchmarks validate that design choice. The Intel Processor 300's strengths, if any, remain undocumented in the database. The AMD part's percentile rank of 89 against all CPUs, versus Intel's rank of 50, provides the only direct comparative metric available, indicating a substantial performance gap in the recorded data.