AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data set provides a full benchmark suite for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded benchmark scores. Consequently, all head-to-head comparisons rely on the Intel part’s measured performance and its position relative to the AMD processor’s architectural specifications and percentile ranking.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H sits at the 84th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its average benchmark score is 33,989. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS holds a 50th percentile ranking, which indicates that the Intel part is substantially ahead in overall measured performance. The delta between the two processors is significant: the Intel chip outperforms the AMD chip by a wide margin in every benchmark category where data exists.

In Cinebench tests, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H delivers a multi-core score of 16,331 in Cinebench R23 and a single-core score of 2,044. In Cinebench R20, it scores 10,213 multi-core and 1,441 single-core. In the older Cinebench R15, the results are 2,504 multi-core and 305 single-core. These scores indicate a balanced performance profile, with strong scaling from single-threaded to multi-threaded workloads.

PassMark results for the Intel part show particular strengths in data compression (276,539), floating point math (84,067), and integer math (64,934). The processor also records 28,717 in the PassMark multi-thread test and 4,180 in the single-thread test. Data encryption reaches 21,367, extended instructions hit 23,906, and random string sorting scores 34,082. The physics test returns 2,697, while the prime numbers test yields 304.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded scores in the database, so direct numerical wins for the AMD part cannot be established. The AMD processor’s 50th percentile is the only performance indicator available. The Intel part’s 84th percentile represents a clear advantage in aggregate.

When comparing the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H to its nearest rivals, the data shows tight competition. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165H scores 34,083, which is 0.3% higher than the 338H’s 33,989. The Intel Core i7-12800HX scores 33,875, putting it 0.3% lower. The Intel Xeon 6353P scores 33,844, also 0.4% lower. The AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34,220, which is 0.7% higher. These margins are narrow, indicating that the 338H is competitively positioned within its immediate peer group.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H for users who require proven, measured performance. The Intel part’s 84th percentile ranking versus the AMD part’s 50th percentile is a decisive gap. All recorded benchmark scores belong to the Intel processor, and they show strong multi-core throughput and respectable single-core speed.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS offers a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz) and a higher base clock (4.30 GHz versus 1.90 GHz), but without recorded benchmarks, these specifications do not translate into measurable wins. The AMD part also has a lower core count (6 versus 12) and fewer threads (12 versus 12, but with hyperthreading on the AMD side versus Intel’s 12 physical cores with no extra threads).

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded performance, such as rendering, compilation, or data processing, the Intel part’s recorded Cinebench and PassMark scores indicate it is the stronger choice. The AMD part’s lack of data means it cannot be recommended on the basis of measured outcomes. The Intel part’s nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its average score, which suggests consistent performance across similar-tier processors.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H also supports a higher memory bandwidth (136.5 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), which can benefit memory-intensive tasks. The AMD part offers ECC memory support, a feature absent on the Intel part, which may be relevant for specific embedded or reliability-focused deployments. However, in terms of raw benchmark performance, the Intel processor has the advantage.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a die size of 178 mm². The processor has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its TDP is 45 watts. Cache configuration includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. The platform uses AMD Socket FP8 and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Radeon 760M. The AMD part is from the 8000 series and falls in the Ryzen Embedded product line.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. It has 12 cores and 12 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. Base clock is 1.90 GHz and boost clock is 4.70 GHz. TDP is 25 watts, which is lower than the AMD part. Cache includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. The socket is Intel BGA 2540. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Arc B370. The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation.

Key architectural differences include core count (Intel has double the cores), process node (Intel is 3 nm versus AMD’s 4 nm), memory type and bandwidth (Intel supports LPDDR5X with higher bandwidth), and PCIe generation (Intel has Gen 5 but fewer lanes). The AMD part has a higher clock speed and supports ECC, while the Intel part delivers higher memory throughput and more physical cores. The TDP difference is notable: 45 watts for AMD versus 25 watts for Intel, which may affect thermal and power constraints in embedded designs. The Intel part’s release date is later (2026-01-04) compared to the AMD part (2024-04-01).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports 136.5 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher database percentile ranking?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is at the 84th percentile among all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS is at the 50th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in all recorded benchmark categories, as it is the only processor with benchmark data. Its multi-core performance is strong, with a Cinebench R23 score of 16,331 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 28,717. These results indicate that the Intel part is suited for heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, scientific simulation, or server-side processing. Its single-core scores are also competitive, with a Cinebench R23 single-core result of 2,044 and a PassMark single-thread score of 4,180. The Intel part’s memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s gives it an edge in memory-bound applications.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS wins on paper in clock speed, with a 5.00 GHz boost versus the Intel part’s 4.70 GHz. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which is critical for applications requiring data integrity, such as financial transactions, medical systems, or long-running embedded controllers. The AMD part’s PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes provides more expansion capability than the Intel part’s 4 lanes, which may benefit systems with multiple peripherals. The AMD part’s 45-watt TDP, while higher than the Intel part’s 25 watts, may allow for more sustained performance in thermally unconstrained environments.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H’s 84th percentile versus the AMD part’s 50th percentile is the dominant factor in the database. The Intel part also has more physical cores (12 versus 6), which provides a structural advantage in parallel workloads. The Intel part’s LPDDR5X memory support and higher bandwidth further reinforce its position for data-intensive tasks.

For embedded applications that prioritize reliability through ECC and need higher clock speeds, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has qualitative advantages. For applications that demand measured multi-threaded throughput and have access to the benchmark data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the proven performer. The AMD part’s absence of benchmark scores means its real-world performance cannot be verified from the database, whereas the Intel part has a complete suite of results across multiple test methodologies.