AMD Ryzen 5 5600F vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins all 11 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F. The largest margins appear in workloads that stress parallel execution and specialized instruction paths, while the smallest gap emerges in integer math.

The most dominant Intel victory comes in the PassMark physics test, where the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 2697 versus 1043 for the Ryzen 5 5600F, a 61.3% advantage. This result indicates a substantial difference in the ability to process physics simulations, which often rely on heavy multi-threaded workloads and efficient scheduling. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: Intel leads 84067 to 34548, a 58.9% gap. Prime number finding also favors Intel heavily, with scores of 304 versus 120, representing a 60.5% lead. These three workloads together suggest that the Core Ultra 5 338H has a considerable throughput advantage in mathematically intensive, parallel-friendly tasks.

Data encryption shows Intel ahead by 35.2%, scoring 21367 against AMD's 13839. This is a notable margin for a security-related workload, indicating that the Intel processor handles cryptographic operations more efficiently in this benchmark. Extended instruction performance follows with a 32% lead for Intel (23906 versus 16266), which reflects better execution of advanced SIMD or specialized instruction sets. Random string sorting, a test of memory access patterns and sorting algorithms, gives Intel a 31.3% advantage (34082 versus 23422).

Multi-threaded performance, captured in the PassMark multithread score, shows Intel at 28717 versus AMD at 19236, a 33% lead. This aligns with the core count difference, though the per-core efficiency also plays a role. Single-thread performance is not exempt from Intel's dominance: the Core Ultra 5 338H scores 4180 against the Ryzen 5 5600F's 2872, a 31.3% margin. This is particularly telling because single-thread tests typically rely less on core count and more on clock speed and architectural efficiency. The Intel part boosts to 4.70 GHz compared to AMD's 4.00 GHz, which helps explain this gap.

Data compression shows Intel ahead by 15.8% (276539 versus 232836), a smaller margin than many other tests. This workload often balances memory bandwidth, cache hierarchy, and integer throughput, and the results suggest that the AMD processor's cache configuration keeps it relatively competitive here. Integer math is the closest contest of all: Intel scores 64934 versus AMD's 59339, a lead of only 8.6%. This modest gap indicates that for pure integer arithmetic, the two processors are more evenly matched, despite the Intel part's overall advantages elsewhere.

The Ryzen 5 5600F records zero wins across the 11 head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 36945, placing it at the 85th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989, which sits at the 84th percentile. The average scores mask the head-to-head results because they include different test suites; the PassMark suite used for direct comparison consistently favors Intel.

Looking at nearest rivals positions the two parts within their respective ecosystems. The Ryzen 5 5600F's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 with an average score of 36938, a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 5500X3D scores 37018 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 scores 37093 (0.4% higher), and the Intel Core i9-12900T scores 37112 (0.5% higher). For the Core Ultra 5 338H, the nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 34083 (0.3% higher), followed by the Intel Core i7-12800HX at 33875 (0.3% lower), the Intel Xeon 6353P at 33844 (0.4% lower), and the AMD EPYC 4244P at 34220 (0.7% higher). These data points show that the Ryzen 5 5600F sits in a slightly higher average-score band than the Core Ultra 5 338H, even though the direct PassMark comparisons favor Intel.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. It packs 4,150 million transistors into a die size of 74 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also codenamed Panther Lake, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundries. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

Core and thread configurations diverge sharply. The Ryzen 5 5600F has 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning it supports simultaneous multithreading. The Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, with no multithreading on any core. This creates an interesting dynamic: the Intel part has twice as many physical cores but the same total thread count as the AMD part. The benchmark results suggest that Intel's 12 physical cores deliver better throughput than AMD's 6 cores with 12 threads, particularly in the multithread and physics tests.

Clock speeds also differ in ways that affect performance. The Ryzen 5 5600F has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Core Ultra 5 338H has a lower base clock of 1.90 GHz but a much higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The single-thread benchmark results (4180 versus 2872) suggest that the Intel part's higher boost clock, combined with its architectural efficiency, gives it a clear advantage in lightly threaded workloads.

Cache hierarchies are structured very differently. The Ryzen 5 5600F provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 338H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has substantially more L1 and L2 cache per core, which likely contributes to its strong single-thread and integer math results. The AMD part has more L3 cache overall (32 MB versus 18 MB), but the data shows this does not translate into benchmark wins.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Ryzen 5 5600F supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 136.5 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC. The 2.67x bandwidth advantage for Intel (136.5 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) is substantial and likely influences the data compression and random string sorting results, though those margins were smaller than other tests.

PCIe connectivity differs in generation and lane count. The Ryzen 5 5600F provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Core Ultra 5 338H provides PCIe Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part uses a newer PCIe generation but far fewer CPU-attached lanes, which reflects its mobile market positioning. The Ryzen 5 5600F includes no integrated graphics, while the Core Ultra 5 338H includes Arc B370 integrated graphics.

Thermal design power (TDP) differs dramatically. The Ryzen 5 5600F has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts. This indicates that the Intel part is designed for a much lower power envelope, consistent with its mobile segment, yet it still outperforms the AMD desktop part in every recorded head-to-head test.

The socket types reflect the intended platforms. The Ryzen 5 5600F uses AMD Socket AM4, a desktop socket with a long upgrade history. The Core Ultra 5 338H uses Intel BGA 2540, a ball-grid array socket typically soldered to mobile motherboards. The Ryzen 5 5600F has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Core Ultra 5 338H does not. The AMD part is released on 2025-09-15, and the Intel part is released on 2026-01-04, making the Intel chip the newer release by several months.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H across every direct comparison in the PassMark suite. The Intel part leads by margins ranging from 8.6% in integer math to 61.3% in physics. No test in the head-to-head set favors the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F.

For workloads that depend on floating point math, physics simulation, or prime number finding, the Intel part offers a massive advantage. Its 58.9% lead in floating point and 60.5% lead in prime numbers indicate that compute-heavy parallel workloads will run significantly faster. The 33% lead in multithread and the 31.3% lead in single-thread performance cover both ends of the threading spectrum, making the Intel part broadly faster for general-purpose tasks.

The AMD part does have mitigating factors outside pure performance. It supports ECC memory, which is absent on the Intel part. It has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Intel part is locked. It uses the AM4 socket, which supports desktop builds with discrete graphics, whereas the Intel part is a mobile BGA component. The AMD part also has a higher TDP of 65 watts versus 25 watts, which means it consumes more power but also suggests it may sustain higher loads in a desktop thermal environment.

The average benchmark scores complicate the direct comparison slightly. The Ryzen 5 5600F averages 36945 across its recorded benchmarks, sitting at the 85th percentile. The Core Ultra 5 338H averages 33989, at the 84th percentile. These averages include different test suites, so they are not directly comparable to the head-to-head PassMark results. The nearest rival data shows the AMD part's average score is 0.5% higher than the Intel Core i9-12900T, while the Intel part's average is 0.3% lower than the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H.

The database indicates that the Core Ultra 5 338H is the faster processor in every measured PassMark test. Users who require maximum performance in the recorded workloads should favor the Intel part. Users who need ECC support, an unlocked multiplier, or a desktop AM4 platform should consider the Ryzen 5 5600F, as those features are not available on the Intel mobile chip.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category. Core count: 6 cores for AMD versus 12 cores for Intel. Thread count: 12 threads for both, but AMD uses simultaneous multithreading while Intel does not. Base clock: 3.00 GHz for AMD versus 1.90 GHz for Intel. Boost clock: 4.00 GHz for AMD versus 4.70 GHz for Intel. TDP: 65 watts for AMD versus 25 watts for Intel.

Socket: AMD Socket AM4 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: Zen 3 (Vermeer) versus Panther Lake. Process node: 7 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel foundry). Transistors: 4,150 million for AMD, not recorded for Intel. Die size: 74 mm² for AMD, not recorded for Intel.

Cache: L1 is 64 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel. L2 is 512 KB per core for AMD versus 2.5 MB per core for Intel. L3 is 32 MB shared for AMD versus 18 MB shared for Intel. Memory support: DDR4 for AMD versus LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s for AMD versus 136.5 GB/s for Intel. ECC: supported on AMD, not on Intel.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics: N/A for AMD versus Arc B370 for Intel. Market segment: Desktop for AMD versus Mobile for Intel. Multiplier: unlocked for AMD, locked for Intel. Release date: 2025-09-15 for AMD versus 2026-01-04 for Intel. Part number: 100-000001903 for AMD versus SA4REQ9EW for Intel.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has 6 cores.

Q: Do both processors support the same number of threads?

A: Yes, both support 12 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading on 6 cores, while the Intel part has 12 physical cores without multithreading.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F boosts to 4.00 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H supports LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F supports DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H does not.

Q: Which processor won the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H won all 11 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 5600F.

Q: What are the TDP values for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5600F has a TDP of 65 watts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has a TDP of 25 watts.