AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS vs Intel Core i7-14700T Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS and Intel Core i7-14700T are nearly inseparable in overall benchmark averages, with the AMD part scoring 41,963 and the Intel part scoring 41,914—a mere 0.1% difference. However, this statistical tie masks a stark divergence in workload behavior: Intel wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, while AMD wins 6, with each processor dominating entirely different task categories. The data shows a clear split between Intel’s raw compute throughput and AMD’s specialized instruction and memory-handling efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i7-14700T scores 25,980 versus the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS’s 25,165, giving Intel a 3.1% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS edges out the Intel Core i7-14700T with a score of 3,920 versus 3,905, a 0.4% margin that favors AMD in PassMark single-thread testing.

Q: Which CPU offers better data compression performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS wins PassMark data compression decisively, scoring 368,884 against Intel’s 354,216—a 4.1% lead for AMD.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark extended instructions, where AMD scores 27,714 versus Intel’s 20,052—a massive 38.2% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel chip have a higher core count?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-14700T has 20 cores and 28 threads, compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: Both processors share the same 5.20 GHz boost clock, though the AMD chip starts from a 4.00 GHz base clock while Intel starts from a much lower 1.30 GHz base.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. AMD’s Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS is built on a 4 nm TSMC process with a 178 mm² die containing 25,000 million transistors, using the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename. Intel’s Core i7-14700T is fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm process with a larger 257 mm² die, using the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename.

Core count differences are extreme: AMD provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel offers 20 cores and 28 threads—a 2.5x core advantage for Intel. Cache hierarchies also diverge sharply. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel gives each core 80 KB of L1, 2 MB of L2, but boosts shared L3 to 33 MB—more than double AMD’s total L3 capacity.

Memory support differs as well. AMD supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel bus and a rated memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel, with no published memory bandwidth figure in the data. Both processors support ECC memory, but PCIe capabilities diverge: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics are distinct: AMD uses Radeon 780M, while Intel uses UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP7, released in April 2024. Intel’s chip is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700, released in January 2024 with a launch MSRP of $384. Intel’s process node is listed as 10 nm, while AMD’s is 4 nm, though Intel’s die is larger despite the older node. Power targets differ too: AMD has a 45 W TDP, while Intel operates at 35 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear workload-based verdict rather than an overall winner. For pure compute-heavy tasks like physics simulation, prime number finding, and floating-point math, the Intel Core i7-14700T is the choice. It leads by 26.5% in PassMark physics, 37.2% in find prime numbers, and 19.7% in floating-point math. Intel also sweeps every Cinebench benchmark—R15, R20, and R23—in both single-core and multi-core, with consistent 3.1% to 3.3% margins.

For software that leverages extended instructions, data compression, encryption, or random string sorting, the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS is superior. The 38.2% advantage in extended instructions is the single largest gap in the entire comparison, and AMD also wins data compression by 4.1%, encryption by 2.6%, and random string sorting by 15.9%. AMD also takes a narrow 0.4% win in PassMark single-thread performance.

The overall averages are nearly identical—41,963 for AMD versus 41,914 for Intel—which places both at the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The choice hinges on specific software: Intel dominates general compute and Cinebench rendering, while AMD excels at specialized instruction workloads and memory-heavy tasks like compression and sorting. The Intel part’s 20 cores and 28 threads give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded throughput, but AMD’s Zen 4 architecture with higher base clock and smaller process node delivers efficiency in targeted operations.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads; Intel has 20 cores and 28 threads. AMD’s base clock is 4.00 GHz, while Intel’s is 1.30 GHz—a 3.7 GHz gap. Both boost to 5.20 GHz. TDP differs: AMD at 45 W, Intel at 35 W. Sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FP7 versus Intel Socket 1700.

Cache structures are wholly different: AMD’s L1 is 64 KB per core, Intel’s is 80 KB per core. AMD’s L2 is 1 MB per core, Intel’s is 2 MB per core. Shared L3 is 16 MB for AMD and 33 MB for Intel. Memory support: AMD is DDR5-only; Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is rated at 89.6 GB/s for AMD, with no figure for Intel. PCIe: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes; Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

Process node: AMD uses 4 nm (TSMC), Intel uses 10 nm (Intel). Die size: AMD is 178 mm², Intel is 257 mm². Transistors: AMD has 25,000 million, Intel has no listed count. Integrated graphics: AMD uses Radeon 780M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 770. Market segment: AMD is mobile, Intel is desktop. Release dates: AMD in April 2024, Intel in January 2024. Intel has a launch MSRP of $384; AMD has none listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Part numbers: AMD has two variants (100-000001314 FP7r2 and 100-000001386 FP7), Intel has one (SRN41).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Intel wins the Cinebench family outright. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 2,618 versus AMD’s 2,536, a 3.1% lead. Single-core R15 shows Intel at 369 versus AMD’s 357, a 3.3% gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core: Intel 10,911, AMD 10,569, 3.1% for Intel. Single-core R20: Intel 1,540, AMD 1,491, 3.2% for Intel. Cinebench R23 multi-core: Intel 25,980, AMD 25,165, 3.1% for Intel. Single-core R23: Intel 3,667, AMD 3,552, 3.1% for Intel.

PassMark results split more dramatically. AMD wins data compression with 368,884 versus 354,216—a 4.1% margin. AMD also takes data encryption (21,820 versus 21,277, 2.6%) and extended instructions by a colossal 38.2% (27,714 versus 20,052). AMD wins random string sorting at 44,668 versus 38,546, a 15.9% advantage. AMD edges out Intel in PassMark single-thread at 3,920 versus 3,905, just 0.4%.

Intel’s PassMark wins are in compute-heavy areas. Find prime numbers: Intel 145 versus AMD 91, a 37.2% blowout. Floating-point math: Intel 79,042 versus AMD 63,490, a 19.7% lead. Integer math: Intel 113,854 versus AMD 103,390, a 9.2% margin. Physics: Intel 1,946 versus AMD 1,430, a 26.5% gap. Multi-thread: Intel 30,571 versus AMD 30,378, a narrow 0.6% win. Overall, Intel wins 11 tests, AMD wins 6.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 8945HS wins in software that stresses instruction-level parallelism and memory manipulation. The 38.2% lead in extended instructions suggests workloads like cryptography, signal processing, or specialized AVX-512-style operations run far better on AMD. The 15.9% win in random string sorting and 4.1% win in data compression indicate text processing, database operations, and archiving tools favor AMD. The 2.6% encryption advantage reinforces this pattern. AMD also takes the single-thread PassMark crown by 0.4%, making it marginally better for lightly threaded tasks that rely on raw single-core execution.

Intel Core i7-14700T wins in general-purpose compute and rendering. The consistent 3.1% to 3.3% Cinebench margins across R15, R20, and R23—both single and multi-core—make Intel the clear pick for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other Cinebench-class workloads. The 26.5% physics advantage points to simulation and gaming physics engines favoring Intel. The 37.2% lead in prime number finding suggests number-crunching scientific workloads run much faster on Intel. Floating-point math’s 19.7% margin and integer math’s 9.2% margin confirm Intel’s dominance in arithmetic-heavy tasks. The multi-thread PassMark win, albeit just 0.6%, combined with 20 cores and 28 threads, indicates Intel handles heavily parallel workloads with more headroom despite the similar overall score.

The data shows no universal winner. AMD’s specialized efficiency in extended instructions and memory operations contrasts with Intel’s brute-force compute strength. Users running compression, encryption, or instruction-heavy code should favor AMD; those rendering, simulating physics, or executing math-dense algorithms should choose Intel. The near-identical average scores (0.1% apart) mean the decision rests entirely on workload profile rather than overall capability.