AMD Ryzen 5 4600H vs Intel Core i7-10850H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two distinct narratives: AMD’s Ryzen 5 4600H dominates the multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads, while Intel’s Core i7-10850H counters in single-threaded and specialized math tests. The head-to-head table shows 10 wins for AMD versus 7 for Intel, but the margin of victory matters more than the tally.

The largest single gap is in data encryption, where the Ryzen 5 4600H scores 12,217 versus Intel’s 3,890 — a 214.1% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it suggests the AMD part’s cryptographic instruction pipeline is dramatically more efficient in this benchmark. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD posts 1,425 against Intel’s 986, a 44.5% lead. The R15 single-core test also favors AMD, 176 to 139, a 26.6% gap. These are older workloads, but they are not trivial — they reflect sustained all-core and single-core rendering performance under a specific instruction set.

Moving to modern workloads, the picture flips. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 9,786 versus AMD’s 8,072, a 17.5% advantage. The R23 single-core test shows Intel ahead by 17.3%, 1,381 to 1,142.5. This is a significant reversal: the newer Cinebench version scales differently with Intel’s architecture. GeekBench multi-core still favors AMD, 5,521 to 4,997 (10.5%), but GeekBench single-core goes to Intel, 1,327 to 1,259 (5.1%).

PassMark tests reveal a consistent AMD edge in most integer and floating-point workloads. Integer math: 45,698 vs 39,919 (14.5% AMD). Floating-point math: 26,909 vs 25,216 (6.7% AMD). Extended instructions: 12,942 vs 10,381 (24.7% AMD). Data compression: 202,030 vs 165,882 (21.8% AMD). Multi-thread: 14,228 vs 11,643 (22.2% AMD). Random string sorting is nearly even, 21,689 vs 21,537 (0.7% AMD).

Intel wins the remaining tests by smaller margins but in distinct categories. Find prime numbers: 41 vs 28 (31.7% Intel). Physics: 718 vs 629 (12.4% Intel). Single-thread: 2,668 vs 2,418 (9.4% Intel). These are not core-count or memory-bandwidth tests; they are latency-sensitive and frequency-driven. Intel’s higher boost clock and older but higher-frequency core design show up here.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H wins 10 out of 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core i7-10850H wins 7.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: In PassMark data encryption, the AMD Ryzen 5 4600H scores 12,217 versus Intel’s 3,890, a 214.1% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does Intel win any multi-core test?

A: Yes, Intel wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 9,786 versus AMD’s 8,072, a 17.5% lead. This is the only multi-core test Intel wins in the head-to-head list.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: Intel wins PassMark single-thread (2,668 vs 2,418, 9.4%), GeekBench single-core (1,327 vs 1,259, 5.1%), and Cinebench R23 single-core (1,381 vs 1,142.5, 17.3%). AMD wins Cinebench R15 single-core (176 vs 139, 26.6%).

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 70th percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close: 16,341 for AMD and 16,204 for Intel, a 0.8% difference.

Q: Which CPU has better data compression performance?

A: AMD leads PassMark data compression with 202,030 versus Intel’s 165,882, a 21.8% advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 156 mm² and 9,800 million transistors. It is built on the Renoir codename, part of the 4000 series, and uses the AMD Socket FP6. Intel’s Core i7-10850H uses the Comet Lake architecture, specifically Comet Lake-H, on Intel’s 14 nm process. Intel lists no transistor count or die size in the data.

Both have 6 cores and 12 threads, so core counts do not explain performance differences. Cache configurations differ: AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Intel provides 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Intel has more total L3 cache, but AMD has double the L2 per core.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, with dual-channel buses. AMD’s memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s, while Intel’s is 46.9 GB/s. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, but Intel specifies 16 lanes (CPU only), while AMD does not list a lane count. Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon RX Vega 6, Intel uses UHD Graphics. Neither supports ECC memory. Both are mobile-market parts, unlocked multipliers are false, and both are active in production. AMD’s release date is January 2020; Intel’s is April 2020.

Clock speeds are a clear differentiator: AMD runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost, while Intel runs at 2.70 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. Intel’s boost clock is substantially higher, which aligns with its single-thread wins. Both are 45 W TDP parts.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on workload type. For users who prioritize sustained all-core throughput, encryption, compression, and integer math, the AMD Ryzen 5 4600H is the stronger choice — it wins the majority of tests and often by wide margins. The 214.1% lead in encryption and the 44.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core are decisive. Its memory bandwidth advantage (51.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s) likely contributes to these results.

For users who need peak single-thread performance or run modern rendering workloads like Cinebench R23, the Intel Core i7-10850H is superior. Intel’s 17.5% lead in R23 multi-core and 17.3% lead in R23 single-core are not small margins. The higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.00 GHz gives Intel an edge in latency-sensitive tasks like prime number finding and physics simulation.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 16,341 for AMD and 16,204 for Intel, a 0.8% difference. Both sit at the 70th percentile. This means the choice is not about overall capability but about which specific workloads matter more. If the workload mix includes heavy encryption or data compression, AMD wins decisively. If it includes the latest Cinebench version or single-threaded responsiveness, Intel wins.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specifications:

• Base clock: AMD 3.00 GHz, Intel 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: AMD 4.00 GHz, Intel 5.10 GHz
• Process node: AMD 7 nm, Intel 14 nm
• Foundry: AMD TSMC, Intel Intel
• Socket: AMD Socket FP6, Intel BGA 1440
• L2 cache per core: AMD 512 KB, Intel 256 KB
• L3 cache (shared): AMD 8 MB, Intel 12 MB
• Memory bandwidth: AMD 51.2 GB/s, Intel 46.9 GB/s
• Integrated graphics: AMD Radeon RX Vega 6, Intel UHD Graphics
• Transistor count: AMD 9,800 million, Intel not listed
• Die size: AMD 156 mm², Intel not listed
• Release date: AMD 2020-01-05, Intel 2020-04-01
• Part number: AMD 100-000000100, Intel SRH8P

Both share: 6 cores, 12 threads, 45 W TDP, DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, Gen 3 PCIe, no ECC support, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 5 4600H wins in: data encryption (214.1% lead), Cinebench R15 multi-core (44.5%), Cinebench R15 single-core (26.6%), extended instructions (24.7%), multi-thread PassMark (22.2%), data compression (21.8%), integer math (14.5%), GeekBench multi-core (10.5%), floating-point math (6.7%), and random string sorting (0.7%). These are workloads that benefit from AMD’s newer 7 nm process, larger L2 cache, and higher memory bandwidth.

Intel Core i7-10850H wins in: Cinebench R23 multi-core (17.5% lead), Cinebench R23 single-core (17.3%), find prime numbers (31.7%), physics (12.4%), PassMark single-thread (9.4%), GeekBench single-core (5.1%), and the duplicate PassMark single-thread test (9.4%). These are workloads that favor Intel’s higher boost clock and larger L3 cache.

The use-case split is clean: AMD for encryption-heavy, compression-heavy, or older rendering workloads; Intel for the latest Cinebench, physics simulation, prime number calculations, and any single-threaded responsiveness metric. The average scores are too close to call a global winner, so the decision rests entirely on the application mix.