AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 vs Intel Core 5 223PE Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database reveals a clear split between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 223PE takes 5. The AMD part leads in nearly every multi-threaded Cinebench test and in most PassMark workloads, with particularly large margins in data compression (20.1%), integer math (19.7%), and random string sorting (26.7%). The Intel part counters with wins in single-thread PassMark tests, floating-point math, prime number finding, and physics simulation.

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is the stronger overall processor for general productivity and multi-core workloads. Its 12 cores and 24 threads outnumber the Intel Core 5 223PE's 8 cores and 16 threads, and that structural advantage shows up consistently in the Cinebench suite, where the AMD part leads by 7.8% across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests alike. The average benchmark score of 47022 for the AMD part versus 40585 for the Intel part places the AMD processor in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 87th percentile for the Intel chip.

However, the Intel Core 5 223PE is not without its merits. It delivers a 7.2% higher PassMark single-thread score (4219 versus 3914), a 26.1% higher physics score (2493 versus 1843), and a 21.4% higher prime number finding score (159 versus 125). These wins suggest that for workloads relying on single-thread burst performance or specific math operations, the Intel architecture holds an edge. The choice between these two should therefore hinge on whether the workload leans toward broad multi-threaded throughput or toward specific single-thread and physics-oriented tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the codename Strix Point and a die size of 233 mm². It is built on the Ryzen AI PRO 300 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The chip is a mobile part, using the AMD Socket FP8, and its 12 cores are configured across 24 threads. Its boost clock reaches 5.10 GHz with a base clock of 2.00 GHz, all within a 28 W TDP.

The Intel Core 5 223PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm Intel process. It is a desktop processor on the Intel Socket 1700. Its 8 cores and 16 threads run at a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost to 5.20 GHz, but the TDP is considerably higher at 65 W. The cache layouts differ as well. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core, but the AMD part has 1 MB of L2 per core versus 2 MB per core on the Intel chip. The L3 cache is 16 MB on the AMD processor versus 24 MB shared on the Intel part.

Memory support shows both common ground and divergence. Both support dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and both support ECC memory. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5. PCIe generation differs: the AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the AMD part featuring the Radeon 890M and the Intel part using UHD Graphics 730. The release dates are separated by more than a year, with the AMD part dated January 2025 and the Intel part March 2026. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $232.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 5 223PE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE boosts to 5.20 GHz, slightly ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375's 5.10 GHz. The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 28529, which is 7.8% higher than the Intel Core 5 223PE's 26455.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE scores 4219 in PassMark single-thread, which is 7.2% higher than the AMD part's 3914.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core 5 223PE has a TDP of 65 W.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 and the Intel Core 5 223PE support ECC memory, and both have dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 | Intel Core 5 223PE |

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

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Not specified |

| Codename | Strix Point | Bartlett Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 233 mm² | Not specified |

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

| L3 Cache | 16 MB | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 890M | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | January 2025 | March 2026 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $232 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 leads the Intel Core 5 223PE by 7.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2875 versus 2666), by 7.7% in R15 single-core (405 versus 376), by 7.8% in R20 multi-core (11982 versus 11111), by 7.8% in R20 single-core (1691 versus 1568), by 7.8% in R23 multi-core (28529 versus 26455), and by 7.8% in R23 single-core (4027 versus 3734). The uniformity of these margins suggests a stable architectural efficiency advantage for the AMD part across rendering workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals more varied results. The AMD part dominates in data compression with a 20.1% lead (416331 versus 346623), in data encryption with a 14.8% lead (21186 versus 18448), in extended instructions with a 19% lead (29351 versus 24672), in integer math with a 19.7% lead (119521 versus 99819), in multi-thread with an 8.2% lead (33689 versus 31124), and in random string sorting with a 26.7% lead (45358 versus 35798).

The Intel part wins in find prime numbers with a 21.4% lead (159 versus 125), in floating-point math with a 2.4% lead (76468 versus 74626), in physics with a 26.1% lead (2493 versus 1843), and in single-thread with a 7.2% lead (4219 versus 3914). The physics result is particularly notable, as it is the largest margin in either direction, suggesting the Intel architecture handles that specific workload far more efficiently despite having fewer cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 wins in the majority of workloads, and the pattern of its victories points to broad multi-threaded productivity. It leads in all three Cinebench versions for both multi-core and single-core, which indicates strong rendering performance. Its 20.1% lead in data compression and 19.7% lead in integer math make it well-suited for file archiving, database operations, and general computational tasks. The 26.7% edge in random string sorting suggests advantages in sorting and text processing workloads. The 14.8% lead in data encryption and 19% lead in extended instructions further support its use in security and specialized instruction-heavy applications.

The Intel Core 5 223PE wins in a narrower set of workloads, but the margins in some are substantial. Its 26.1% lead in physics simulation is the largest single win in the entire comparison, making it a better choice for physics-based calculations in engineering or scientific contexts. The 21.4% lead in prime number finding indicates an advantage in number-theoretic workloads. The 7.2% lead in PassMark single-thread points to faster single-threaded responsiveness, and the 2.4% lead in floating-point math, while modest, gives it an edge in floating-point intensive calculations.

The overall data suggests that the AMD part is the more versatile processor, with wins across a wider range of benchmark categories and a higher average score (47022 versus 40585). The Intel part, however, holds specific niches where its architecture delivers meaningful advantages, particularly in physics and single-thread performance. The 28 W TDP of the AMD part versus 65 W for the Intel part also indicates a substantial efficiency difference, which may matter in mobile or thermally constrained environments, though the Intel part is a desktop processor and operates in a different power envelope.