AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS vs Intel Core 9 273PE Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the Intel Core 9 273PE occupy entirely different performance tiers, a fact confirmed by every benchmark in the database. The Intel processor wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, with its largest advantages appearing in heavily multithreaded and physics-based workloads. The AMD processor, however, is not without its own positioning: it ships with a 28-watt TDP, a 4 nm process node, and integrated Radeon 760M graphics, all traits that point toward efficient mobile computing. The data shows a clear hierarchy, with the Intel part holding a 90th percentile rank against all CPUs compared to the AMD part’s 80th percentile, and an average benchmark score of 49,845 versus 28,478.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PE wins every single benchmark category recorded, so the use-case split is not about which processor wins a given test, but rather about which workloads expose the largest or smallest performance gaps. The database indicates that the Intel chip’s dominance is most pronounced in tasks that scale with core count and raw compute throughput. For example, in passmark physics, the Intel part scores 3,120 against the AMD’s 1,043, a 66.6% difference. This suggests the Intel processor is the appropriate choice for simulation, rendering, and other floating-point-heavy tasks where the 12 cores and 24 threads can be fully utilized.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, while losing every test, shows its most competitive showing in single-threaded PassMark performance. The delta there is only 2.4%, with scores of 3,561 and 3,650. This narrow gap indicates that for lightly threaded, latency-sensitive applications, the AMD chip can nearly match the Intel part despite its lower core count. The AMD processor’s efficiency profile, defined by its 28-watt TDP and 4 nm TSMC process, makes it suitable for systems where thermal and power constraints are paramount, such as thin-and-light laptops. The Intel part, with a 65-watt TDP and desktop market segment, is clearly designed for performance-first desktop builds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE scores 4,417 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS scores 2,555. The Intel part leads by 42.2% in this test.

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE scores 36,810 in PassMark multithread, versus the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS’s 21,465. This represents a 41.7% advantage for the Intel processor.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS and the Intel Core 9 273PE list ECC memory support as a feature.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has a TDP of 65 watts. This is a 37-watt difference in favor of the AMD part’s efficiency.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PE has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Intel part has an 0.80 GHz higher boost frequency.

Q: What are the market segments for these two parts?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is classified as a Mobile processor, while the Intel Core 9 273PE is classified as a Desktop processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the comparison is the passmark physics test, where the Intel Core 9 273PE delivers 3,120 points against the AMD’s 1,043, a massive 66.6% lead. This is the largest percentage difference in the entire dataset and points to a fundamental advantage in computational physics workloads. Similarly, passmark floating point math shows the Intel part at 107,884 versus 43,019, a 60.1% difference, reinforcing the Intel processor’s strength in scientific and analytical tasks that rely on heavy arithmetic.

The Intel part’s advantage narrows considerably in integer math, where it scores 139,410 against the AMD’s 69,839, a 49.9% lead. In passmark find prime numbers, the Intel processor scores 203 versus 71, a 65% difference. The data compression test shows the Intel chip at 405,885 versus 246,446, a 39.3% gap, while data encryption shows a 34.1% difference with scores of 22,719 and 14,962. Extended instructions follow a similar pattern: the Intel part leads with 24,630 against 18,507, a 24.9% advantage.

In the Cinebench suite, the Intel processor’s lead is consistent across all versions. For Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 31,288 versus 18,104, a 42.1% difference. Single-core R23 shows a 42.2% lead with scores of 4,417 and 2,555. The same 42.2% delta appears in R15 single-core (445 versus 257) and R20 single-core (1,855 versus 1,073). Multi-core results in R15 (3,153 versus 1,824) and R20 (13,140 versus 7,603) both show a 42.2% and 42.1% lead respectively. The closest benchmark in the entire comparison is PassMark single-thread, where the Intel part scores 3,650 and the AMD scores 3,561, a difference of only 2.4%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 9 273PE has 12 cores and 24 threads. The base clock of the AMD part is 3.50 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 2.30 GHz. The boost clock reverses this: the Intel part reaches 5.70 GHz, outpacing the AMD’s 4.90 GHz. The TDP difference is substantial, with the AMD at 28 watts and the Intel at 65 watts.

The cache hierarchy also diverges. The AMD processor features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support shows the AMD part supporting only DDR5, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use a dual-channel memory bus and have an identical memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The PCIe interface differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics are different as well, with the AMD using Radeon 760M and the Intel using UHD Graphics 730.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS is built on a 4 nm process node by TSMC, with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. It uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, part of the 8000 series. The Intel Core 9 273PE is built on a 10 nm process node by Intel, with the codename Bartlett Lake and the generation label Core 9. The transistor count and die size for the Intel part are not recorded in the database.

The AMD processor uses an AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel processor uses an Intel Socket 1700. The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 5, a newer standard than the AMD’s Gen 4, though the AMD part offers more lanes (20 versus 16). The Intel processor’s release date is later, with a production status of Active for both. The Intel Core 9 273PE has a listed launch MSRP of $549, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS has no launch MSRP recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part’s part numbers are listed as 100-000001354(FP7r2) and 100-000001382(FP7), while the Intel part’s part number is SA4QD.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 9 273PE is the superior performer in every recorded metric. For workloads that demand maximum multi-threading, floating-point math, or physics simulation, the Intel processor is the only choice between these two. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with a 5.70 GHz boost clock and 36 MB of L3 cache, deliver a 42.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 66.6% lead in PassMark physics. The Intel part’s 90th percentile ranking and average score of 49,845 place it well above the AMD’s 80th percentile and average score of 28,478.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8640HS, however, serves a different purpose. Its 28-watt TDP, 4 nm process, and mobile market segment indicate a design focused on power efficiency and portability. The near-parity in PassMark single-thread performance, with only a 2.4% difference, shows that the AMD part can handle everyday tasks without a significant penalty. For a system where battery life and thermal headroom are priorities, the AMD processor is the appropriate selection. The data does not support any scenario where the AMD part wins a performance comparison, but it does carve out a niche as an efficient mobile processor that stays competitive in lightly threaded workloads.