AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a decisive sweep: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all 11 head-to-head tests against the AMD Ryzen 3 30. There is no single workload where the AMD part takes the lead, and the margins are substantial in every category.

The largest gap appears in the prime number search test, where the Intel part scores 326 against the AMD's 20, a difference of 93.9 percent. This workload is heavily dependent on integer throughput and cache behavior, and the Intel processor’s larger core count and cache hierarchy dominate. Floating point math tells a similar story: the Intel part scores 103,615 versus 14,448, a deficit of 86.1 percent for the AMD. Extended instruction performance, which exercises AVX-class workloads, shows the Intel part at 26,901 against 6,075, a 77.4 percent gap.

Data compression and encryption also favor the Intel processor heavily. The compression test shows 327,455 for the Intel part versus 135,834 for the AMD, a 58.5 percent difference. Encryption scores are 25,845 versus 6,461, a 75 percent gap. These tests benefit from more cores and higher memory bandwidth, both of which favor the Intel silicon.

Multi-threaded performance, which often summarizes overall throughput, shows the Intel part at 33,429 against the AMD's 9,027, a 73 percent deficit for the AMD. Physics simulation, another multi-core heavy test, shows 2,880 versus 436, an 84.9 percent gap. Integer math is closer but still lopsided: 83,695 versus 29,846, a 64.3 percent difference. Random string sorting, which stresses memory access patterns and branch prediction, gives the Intel part 39,814 versus 14,431, a 63.8 percent gap.

Single-thread performance is the narrowest margin in the entire comparison, but still clearly favors Intel. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4,043 in the single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 2,465, a 39 percent difference. This is the only head-to-head result where the gap falls below 50 percent, indicating that the AMD core design is comparatively competitive in purely serial workloads, but the Intel part’s higher boost clock and more modern microarchitecture still win out.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall picture. The Intel part sits at 41,263 in the database, while the AMD part averages 20,137. That places the Intel processor in the 87th percentile of all CPUs tracked, versus the 74th percentile for the AMD. The nearest rivals listed for the Intel part include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41,215 (a 0.1 percent difference) and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41,376 (the Intel part trails by 0.3 percent). The AMD Ryzen 3 30, by contrast, sits near the Intel Core i7-9700K at 20,271 (0.7 percent difference) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U at 20,249 (0.6 percent difference). The two processors occupy entirely different performance strata.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile processors is wide. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also its codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The process node difference alone explains a significant portion of the efficiency and frequency capability gap.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach its thread count. The Intel part has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no hyperthreading, so each core maps to one thread. Despite having equal thread counts per core ratio, the Intel part offers four times the physical cores, which directly drives its large multi-threaded benchmark advantages.

Cache hierarchy differences are also pronounced. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache difference alone (18 MB versus 4 MB) explains much of the data compression and random string sorting results, as those workloads repeatedly access working sets that exceed the AMD's smaller cache.

Memory support and bandwidth diverge as well. The AMD part supports LPDDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The 30 percent bandwidth advantage for the Intel part supports its floating point and integer math scores, which are memory-hungry.

PCI Express capability differs substantially. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes. This does not affect the CPU benchmark scores directly, but it indicates the platform-level capabilities for discrete GPUs and storage.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD part uses Radeon 610M graphics, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither is benchmarked in the head-to-head data, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded numbers. Both processors have a locked multiplier, so no overclocking is available on either.

The manufacturing process and foundry also differ: TSMC produces the AMD part at 6 nm, while Intel produces its own part at 3 nm. The AMD die size is listed at 100 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded. Both processors are mobile-market parts, both are active production, and neither supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

Given the sweep of benchmark wins, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every workload category recorded in the database. That includes single-thread performance, multi-thread performance, integer math, floating point math, encryption, compression, extended instructions, physics simulation, and string sorting. The data shows no scenario where the AMD Ryzen 3 30 comes out ahead.

The closest contest is single-thread performance, where the AMD part trails by 39 percent. This suggests that for lightweight serial tasks, such as basic office work or web browsing, the AMD processor is relatively less disadvantaged, though still slower. The Intel part’s 4.80 GHz boost clock versus the AMD’s 4.10 GHz boost clock contributes to this gap, as does the newer Panther Lake core design.

The largest gaps appear in prime number finding and physics simulation, both of which scale with core count and cache. The AMD part’s 4 cores and 8 threads simply cannot match the Intel part’s 16 cores and 16 threads in workloads that parallelize well. For users running heavily threaded workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computation, the Intel part is overwhelmingly faster.

For users constrained by power or thermal limits, the AMD part has a lower TDP at 15 watts versus the Intel part’s 25 watts. The database does not record power efficiency directly, but the TDP figures suggest that the AMD part may be suited to fanless or ultra-light designs, while the Intel part requires more robust cooling. However, the benchmark data does not include any power consumption measurements, so any efficiency conclusion must remain qualitative.

Memory bandwidth favors the Intel part at 115.2 GB/s versus 88.0 GB/s, which reinforces its advantage in data-heavy workloads. The Intel part also has a larger L3 cache, which reduces the frequency of main memory accesses for repetitive workloads.

The AMD part does have a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz versus the Intel part’s 2.00 GHz, but the Intel part’s boost clock is substantially higher at 4.80 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. In sustained single-thread bursts, the Intel part’s boost behavior dominates.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database.

• Cores: 4 (AMD) versus 16 (Intel)
• Threads: 8 (AMD) versus 16 (Intel)
• Base clock: 2.40 GHz (AMD) versus 2.00 GHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 4.10 GHz (AMD) versus 4.80 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 15 W (AMD) versus 25 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket FT6 (AMD) versus Intel BGA 2540 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 2 (AMD) versus Panther Lake (Intel)
• Codename: Mendocino (AMD) versus Panther Lake (Intel)
• Process node: 6 nm (AMD) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) versus Intel (Intel)
• Die size: 100 mm² (AMD) versus not recorded (Intel)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) versus 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 cache: 512 KB per core (AMD) versus 2.5 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 cache: 4 MB shared (AMD) versus 18 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory support: LPDDR5 (AMD) versus DDR5, LPDDR5X (Intel)
• Memory bandwidth: 88.0 GB/s (AMD) versus 115.2 GB/s (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 4 lanes (AMD) versus Gen 5, 12 lanes (Intel)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 610M (AMD) versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (Intel)
• Release date: 2025-09-30 (AMD) versus 2026-01-04 (Intel)
• Part number: unknown (AMD) versus SA4R9Q9EL (Intel)

The two processors share several fields: both are mobile market segments, both are active production, both are dual-channel memory, both have ECC disabled, both have locked multipliers, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP. The series field is null for the AMD part, while the Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores. The Intel part also has 16 threads, compared to 8 threads on the AMD part.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4,043 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 2,465. That is a 39 percent advantage for the Intel part, the smallest gap of any head-to-head benchmark.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 88.0 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has a TDP of 25 watts. No power consumption measurements are recorded in the benchmark data.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen 3 30 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H have ECC memory support listed as false.