I don't think it's possible to answer this in a meaningful way that fits the standards of this subreddit simply due to the fact that institution of knighthood is something that spanned centuries, cultures and borders. You can't really compare a hungarian rider of the 11th century to a 14th century swedish 14th century knight or a french 15th century knight. Their training would have varied wildly, as would their equipment and their fighting style. The same is true for the term "soldier", a German doppelsöldner from a German school of swordsmanship may well have been more than a match for most knights on foot even though he himself is not a knight. A hastily trained spearman in a feudal leavy on the other hand may never even have held a sword in his life.

In very broad terms though, yes, a knight would probably have been more skilled with the sword than most soldiers and certainly more so than the average person. Knights were after all generally professional soldiers (although not always, a Swedish knight for example was a title bestowed upon someone who could field an armored horseman, he didn't have to fight as one himself) and as such received fairly rigorous training, often from a young age. Again, it varies with time and location but we know from surviving manuscripts that training was considered essential for a knight. I found this old answer by /u/knight117 that goes into a few more specific examples for what that training meant. Unsurprisingly, weapons practice is a big part of it.