AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 vs Intel Core i5-14400F Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 is a mobile processor built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, using a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Core i5-14400F is a desktop part based on Raptor Lake, using Intel’s 10 nm process. The two chips target entirely different platforms, yet their specifications place them in a similar performance conversation. The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark runs between these two specific processors, so this analysis relies on the recorded scores for the Intel part and the architectural and specification data for the AMD part. The Intel Core i5-14400F has a recorded average benchmark score of 32279, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 holds a 50th percentile ranking among all CPUs, though its average benchmark score is listed as zero, meaning no comparable workload scores are available for it in the database. That absence of direct measurements limits the comparison to what each processor’s configuration indicates and what the Intel part’s recorded data shows.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Without direct head-to-head test results, the only concrete benchmark numbers available belong to the Intel Core i5-14400F. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 21645, and its single-core score is 3055. In Cinebench R20, the part scores 9090 multi-core and 1283 single-core. The older Cinebench R15 run produces 2181 multi-core and 307 single-core. Geekbench results show 11268 multi-core and 2058 single-core. PassMark tests add more granular data: multi-thread score of 25470, single-thread score of 3701, integer math at 81524, floating point math at 61319, extended instructions at 19937, data compression at 315521, data encryption at 16949, physics at 1523, random string sorting at 32680, and prime number finding at 86. These are the only measured performance figures in the database that pertain to either processor.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so it cannot be placed directly against the Intel part on any workload. However, its configuration suggests where it would compete. The AMD chip has 12 cores and 24 threads, compared to the Intel chip’s 10 cores and 16 threads. That core and thread advantage points toward multi-threaded tasks, though the Intel part’s higher base clock of 2.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz and lower boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 5.20 GHz complicate a simple prediction. The AMD part boosts higher, but the Intel part starts from a higher base frequency. The AMD chip’s 28 W TDP versus the Intel chip’s 65 W TDP indicates the AMD part is designed to operate in a much lower power envelope, which typically limits sustained performance in heavy workloads. The Intel part, with a 65 W TDP, is designed for desktop power delivery and sustained load.

The Intel part’s nearest rivals in the database are all processors with similar average scores. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U scores 32233, which is 0.1% behind the Intel i5-14400F. The Intel Core i9-11900 scores 32226, 0.2% behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 6800HS scores 32354, 0.2% ahead. The Intel Core i7-12800H scores 32121, 0.5% behind. These deltas are tiny, all within half a percentage point, which shows the i5-14400F sits in a very dense performance cluster among both mobile and desktop chips from previous generations. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475, by contrast, has no nearest rivals listed in the database and no average score, so it cannot be placed in that cluster.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Core i5-14400F is the only one of the two with measurable performance results, and those results place it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 sits at the 50th percentile, but that ranking is based on no benchmark scores, so it should not be read as a performance verdict. The Intel part clearly delivers proven multi-threaded performance with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and a Geekbench multi-core score of 11268. The AMD part’s 12 cores and 24 threads promise strong multi-threading, and its 5.20 GHz boost clock is higher than the Intel part’s 4.70 GHz, but no measured data confirms that promise.

The platform difference is decisive. The AMD part is a mobile chip on AMD Socket FP8 with a 28 W TDP and integrated Radeon 890M graphics. The Intel part is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1700 with a 65 W TDP and no integrated graphics. Anyone building a desktop system with a discrete GPU would pick the Intel part, since it has a proven benchmark record and a matching desktop socket. Anyone assembling a thin-and-light laptop would pick the AMD part, since its TDP and socket are designed for mobile use. The Intel part’s launch MSRP is $196, which is the only price information in the database. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 uses Zen 5 architecture under the codename Gorgon Point, and it belongs to the Ryzen AI 400 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The process node is 4 nm, and the foundry is TSMC. The die size is 233 mm². The Intel Core i5-14400F uses Raptor Lake architecture under the codename Raptor Lake-R, and it belongs to the Core i5 generation labeled Raptor Lake Refresh. The process node is 10 nm, and the foundry is Intel. The die size is 215 mm². The AMD chip is built on a smaller process, which explains how it fits 12 cores and 24 threads into a 28 W TDP. The Intel chip uses a larger process and carries a 65 W TDP for its 10 cores and 16 threads.

Cache configurations differ. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has more total L3 cache and more L2 per core, which can help latency-sensitive workloads. The AMD chip’s L3 is smaller at 16 MB, but its Zen 5 architecture may compensate with other efficiencies. Neither processor has 3D V-Cache listed.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The Intel part supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not. PCIe support differs as well: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the CPU, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes for the CPU. The Intel part’s PCIe Gen 5 support is a meaningful advantage for connecting high-bandwidth desktop components, though the AMD part’s Gen 4 lanes are standard for mobile platforms.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ: 12 cores and 24 threads on the AMD side, 10 cores and 16 threads on the Intel side. Base clocks differ: 2.00 GHz for AMD, 2.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks differ: 5.20 GHz for AMD, 4.70 GHz for Intel. TDP differs substantially: 28 W for AMD, 65 W for Intel. Sockets differ: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part uses the Gorgon Point codename and Zen 5 architecture; the Intel part uses Raptor Lake-R and Raptor Lake architecture. Process nodes differ: 4 nm TSMC for AMD, 10 nm Intel for Intel. Die size differs: 233 mm² for AMD, 215 mm² for Intel. L2 cache per core differs: 1 MB for AMD, 1.25 MB for Intel. L3 cache differs: 16 MB for AMD, 20 MB shared for Intel. Memory support differs: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for AMD, DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. The AMD part has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s; the Intel part has none recorded. ECC support differs: none for AMD, yes for Intel. PCIe generation differs: Gen 4 for AMD, Gen 5 for Intel. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 890M on the AMD part, none on the Intel part. Market segment differs: mobile for AMD, desktop for Intel. Release dates differ: the AMD part is dated 2025-12-31T17:00:00.000Z, while the Intel part is dated 2024-01-07T17:00:00.000Z. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $196; the AMD part has none listed. The Intel part has a part number of SRN3RSRN47; the AMD part has 100-000001859. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core i5-14400F has 10 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400F is in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 is in the 50th percentile, but it has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Core i5-14400F support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i5-14400F supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP values for these two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 has a 28 W TDP. The Intel Core i5-14400F has a 65 W TDP.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 includes a Radeon 890M integrated GPU. The Intel Core i5-14400F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel Core i5-14400F supports DDR4 and DDR5.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-14400F wins on proven benchmark data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 21645 and single-core score of 3055, its Geekbench multi-core score of 11268, and its PassMark multi-thread score of 25470 are all recorded in the database. It also wins on PCIe Gen 5 support with 16 CPU lanes, which is a clear advantage for a desktop system using modern storage or GPUs. It supports ECC memory, which matters for workstation reliability. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving builders flexibility in platform cost and availability. Its 65 W TDP is higher, but for a desktop chip that means more sustained power headroom for heavy workloads. Its nearest rivals all sit within 0.5% of its average score, confirming it is a well-positioned part in a competitive performance band.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 475 wins on core count and thread count, with 12 cores and 24 threads versus 10 cores and 16 threads. It has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. It uses a much smaller 4 nm process versus Intel’s 10 nm, which contributes to its dramatically lower 28 W TDP. It includes a Radeon 890M integrated GPU, making it a complete mobile solution without a discrete graphics card. It supports LPDDR5X memory, which is a mobile-specific advantage, and it has a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Its 233 mm² die is larger than the Intel chip’s 215 mm², which is notable given the smaller process node. The AMD part is designed for the mobile segment, so its wins are measured in portability, power efficiency, and platform integration rather than recorded benchmark scores.

The data supports a clean split: the Intel part for desktop builders who need verified multi-core performance and modern PCIe connectivity, the AMD part for mobile systems where low power draw, integrated graphics, and high core counts matter. The Intel part’s benchmark record gives it a concrete performance profile, while the AMD part’s profile is entirely architectural. Without recorded scores for the AMD chip, any direct performance claim would be speculative. The database shows one chip with a full benchmark history and one chip with a strong specification sheet but no measured results.