AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X versus the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a full set of recorded benchmark scores, while the AMD part has no benchmark records at all. This asymmetry means the comparison must rely on the Intel chip's measured results and the architectural specifications of both processors.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H posts an average benchmark score of 33,989. It sits at the 84th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in overall score are the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 34,083, which is 0.3% ahead, and the Intel Core i7-12800HX at 33,875, which is 0.3% behind. The AMD EPYC 4244P scores 34,220, putting it 0.7% ahead, while the Intel Xeon 6353P scores 33,844, 0.4% behind. These tight margins indicate the Core Ultra 5 338H clusters with high-end mobile and workstation parts from the previous generation.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X carries no benchmark scores in the database and no nearest rivals. Its percentileVsAllCpus is 50, which is the median position, but this value is unverified by any actual measurement. The data cannot show how it performs in Cinebench or Passmark tests because no such results exist.

Where Each One Wins

For the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, the recorded data shows strengths across several workload types. In Cinebench R23, it scores 16,331 in multi-core and 2,044 in single-core. In the older Cinebench R20, it scores 10,213 multi-core and 1,441 single-core. In Cinebench R15, the scores are 2,504 multi-core and 305 single-core. These results show a balanced multi-threaded and single-threaded profile.

The Passmark results reinforce this balance. The multithread score is 28,717, while the single-thread score is 4,180. In floating point math, the chip reaches 84,067, and in integer math it scores 64,934. Data compression scores 276,539, which is the highest single recorded result for this processor. Data encryption scores 21,367. The extended instructions score is 23,906. Random string sorting reaches 34,082. Physics simulation scores 2,697, and find prime numbers scores 304.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no wins recorded in the database because no benchmark entries exist. Its specifications, however, indicate the intended use case. It is a desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads, a 4.40 GHz base clock, and a 5.60 GHz boost clock. The Intel part has 12 cores and 12 threads, a 1.90 GHz base clock, and a 4.70 GHz boost clock. The AMD chip's higher clock rates and doubled thread count suggest it would perform well in heavily parallel workloads, but the database provides no measured confirmation.

FAQ

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD part has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. Only the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has recorded benchmark results.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score of 33,989 is 0.3% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-12800HX, 0.4% above the Intel Xeon 6353P, and 0.7% below the AMD EPYC 4244P.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's Cinebench R23 multi-core score?

A: The recorded Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 16,331, with a single-core score of 2,044.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s with DDR5 support. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s with LPDDR5X support.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD part has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 4.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The Intel part has 12 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The TDP differs substantially: the AMD chip is rated at 120 watts, the Intel chip at 25 watts.

Memory support also differs. The AMD processor uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel processor uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 136.5 GB/s bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The PCIe configurations are different as well: the AMD part provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel chip does not. The market segments differ: AMD targets desktop, Intel targets mobile.

The integrated graphics differ. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X includes Radeon Graphics. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X is built on the Granite Ridge codename, part of the 9000 series, using the Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The transistor count is 16,630 million, and the die size is 2x 70.6 mm². The cache layout is 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3. The release date is 2025-10-06, and the part number is 100-000000662E.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 5 generation with the Panther Lake-H suffix. It is manufactured on a 3 nm process by Intel. The cache layout is 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The release date is 2026-01-04, and the part number is SA4REQ9EW.

The most significant architectural differences are the process node (4 nm TSMC versus 3 nm Intel), the cache organization (a large 64 MB L3 on AMD versus an 18 MB shared L3 on Intel), and the transistor and die size data, which exists only for the AMD part. The AMD chip's per-core L1 and L2 caches are smaller than Intel's, but its total L3 is more than three times larger. The Intel chip's smaller L3 and lack of simultaneous multithreading (12 threads from 12 cores) contrast with AMD's 24 threads from 12 cores. The Intel part also has a significantly lower TDP, which aligns with its mobile market segment, while the AMD part's higher TDP aligns with desktop use.

The Verdict

The recorded data allows only a partial verdict. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a complete set of benchmark results, showing it operates at the 84th percentile of all CPUs, with an average score of 33,989. Its nearest rivals are all within a 0.7% margin, placing it in a competitive cluster with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H, Intel Core i7-12800HX, Intel Xeon 6353P, and AMD EPYC 4244P.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X has no benchmark measurements in the database. Its specifications suggest a high-performance desktop processor: 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, 64 MB of L3 cache, ECC memory support, and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Intel part offers a lower-power mobile design with 12 cores without multithreading, a 4.70 GHz boost clock, 18 MB of L3 cache, no ECC support, and only 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Intel chip's memory bandwidth is higher at 136.5 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, which reflects its LPDDR5X support.

For users choosing between these two processors, the data supports different decisions based on the workload and platform. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the only one with measured performance, and those measurements show a solid mid-to-high range mobile processor. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X offers more cores, more threads, higher clocks, more L3 cache, ECC support, and more PCIe lanes, but the database contains no evidence of how these specifications translate into benchmark scores. The AMD part's 120 watt TDP and desktop socket indicate a different usage model than the Intel part's 25 watt TDP and BGA package. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the Intel part has proven performance, while the AMD part has unverified potential.