AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts differ between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Despite having double the core count, the Intel part maintains the same thread count, indicating a different threading strategy.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS boosts to 5.10 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's boost of 4.90 GHz. The AMD part also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz compared to 2.10 GHz.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel part uses a more advanced node.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H offers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS provides 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part has a 28.6% higher memory bandwidth figure.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H does not. This is a notable difference for workloads requiring error correction.

Q: What is the PCIe generation difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H dominates the benchmark suite in this comparison. It holds wins across every recorded test, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark workloads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmark wins in the recorded data, as its benchmark array is empty. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H's nearest rivals underscore its position. It sits 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which scores 43326, and 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, which scores 43431. It edges out the Intel Core i9-12900 by 0.7% and the Intel Core i9-12900KF by 0.9%. These deltas are tight, showing the Ultra 9 386H competes at the top of the desktop-class performance range despite being a mobile processor.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS, with a 50th percentile ranking and no benchmark scores, cannot be placed relative to these rivals in the database. The data indicates the Intel part is the clear performance leader in recorded workloads, but the AMD chip's feature set, such as ECC support and a higher boost clock, may appeal to specific embedded use cases where raw benchmark scores are not the sole criterion.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS uses Zen 4, under the Hawk Point codename, part of the Ryzen Embedded 8000 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel part's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has more L1 and L2 per core, plus a larger L3 pool. The AMD part's L3 is shared across 8 cores, while the Intel part's 18 MB is shared across 16 cores, which changes how cache is allocated per thread.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS supports only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The Intel part's 115.2 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD part's 89.6 GB/s, a gap that likely stems from the memory types supported. ECC memory is available on the AMD chip but not on the Intel chip, a key architectural feature for embedded and reliability-focused deployments.

PCIe capabilities also diverge. The AMD chip offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel chip offers PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes. The Intel part's newer PCIe standard provides higher per-lane bandwidth, but the AMD part provides more total lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD chip uses Radeon 780M, while the Intel chip uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The AMD part's socket is AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 8 cores and 16 threads for AMD versus 16 cores and 16 threads for Intel. The AMD chip has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz versus 4.90 GHz. The TDP differs significantly, with the AMD chip rated at 45 W and the Intel chip at 25 W. This means the Intel part delivers its performance at a lower thermal envelope.

The process node differs: 4 nm TSMC for AMD versus 3 nm Intel for the Intel part. Transistor count is recorded only for AMD at 25,000 million; the Intel part's count is not in the database. Die size is 178 mm² for AMD, with Intel's not recorded. Cache configurations differ: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3; Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: AMD supports DDR5 only, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 115.2 GB/s for Intel. ECC memory is supported on AMD but not on Intel. PCIe differs: AMD uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 780M on AMD versus Intel Xe3 Graphics on Intel.

The release dates differ: the AMD chip launched on 2024-04-01, while the Intel chip launched on 2026-01-04. The Intel part has a recorded part number, SA4R5Q9EH, while the AMD part's part number is unknown. Neither processor has a launch MSRP in the database. Both are mobile market segments, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has a full benchmark record, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no recorded scores. The comparison is therefore one-sided, but the Intel part's numbers can be interpreted against its nearest rivals.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 3223. Its single-core score is 303.5. In Cinebench R20, it scores 12820 multicore and 1809 single-core. In Cinebench R23, it scores 20547 multicore and 2071.5 single-core. These rendering scores place it near the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which averages 43326, a 0.3% gap. The Intel Core i9-12900 averages 42906, which is 0.7% behind the Ultra 9 386H's average of 43210.

PassMark workloads show consistent strength. The Intel part scores 352365 in data compression, 27150 in data encryption, and 29138 in extended instructions. It scores 341 in find prime numbers, 108527 in floating point math, and 87284 in integer math. Its multithread score is 35399, physics score is 3028, and random string sorting score is 42135. Single-thread performance is recorded twice in the database, both at 4218.

The Intel part's average benchmark score of 43210 places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals are all within 1% of its average: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43326 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43431 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Core i9-12900 at 42906 (0.7% behind), and the Intel Core i9-12900KF at 42830 (0.9% behind). This clustering indicates the Ultra 9 386H performs at the level of previous-generation desktop flagship processors.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS has no benchmarks in the database, so no direct score comparison is possible. Its 50th percentile ranking across all CPUs suggests mid-pack positioning, but without recorded scores, the data cannot confirm how it would fare against the Intel part in specific workloads.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the performance leader based on the recorded data. It holds wins in every benchmark category, from Cinebench multicore and single-core tests to PassMark's full suite of workloads. Its average benchmark score of 43210 and 88th percentile ranking place it among the top mobile processors in the database. Its nearest rivals, all within 0.9% of its average, are desktop-class parts like the Intel Core i9-12900 and i9-12900KF, which shows the Ultra 9 386H punches above its mobile segment.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS offers no benchmark scores in the database, so its performance cannot be quantified against the Intel part. Its 50th percentile ranking indicates mid-pack standing, but the absence of recorded data means the comparison is incomplete. The AMD chip does have advantages in specific features: a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz, ECC memory support, more PCIe lanes at 20, and a lower process node at 4 nm TSMC. These features matter for embedded deployments where reliability and connectivity are prioritized over raw compute.

The Intel part's lower TDP of 25 W versus 45 W is notable. It delivers its benchmark-leading performance at a lower thermal envelope, which is relevant for mobile and compact systems. Its faster memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and support for LPDDR5X give it a memory subsystem advantage. Its newer PCIe Gen 5 interface, despite fewer lanes, offers higher per-lane throughput.

The verdict depends on the use case. For workloads measured by the database's benchmarks, the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the clear choice. It delivers top-tier rendering and compute scores, competing with desktop CPUs from the previous generation. For embedded applications requiring ECC memory, a higher boost clock, or more PCIe lanes, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8845HS offers features the Intel part lacks. The data does not provide benchmark evidence for the AMD chip, so its performance potential remains unquantified in this comparison.