AMD Ryzen 3 3100U vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This means a direct head-to-head comparison of measured performance cannot be constructed from the recorded data. The AMD part has a full set of PassMark results, while the Intel part has an average benchmark score of 0 and no individual test entries.

The Ryzen 3 3100U produces an average benchmark score of 6247, placing it at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals in aggregate scoring are the Intel Core i9-7940X at 6147 (1.6% lower), the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6186 (1% lower), and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at 6231 (0.3% lower). The Intel Core i9-10920X sits 1.6% higher at 6347. These figures indicate the 2-core Ryzen chip scores in line with much larger, higher-core desktop parts in overall PassMark average, which speaks to the weighting of the benchmark mix.

The strongest individual result for the Ryzen 3 3100U is in data compression, where it scores 38455. This figure towers over its other test results, suggesting the workload responds well to the processor's architecture. Data encryption returns 1972, extended instructions 2116, and random string sorting 4666. Floating point math scores 5854, integer math 8873, and multithread performance scores 3348. Single-thread performance is recorded twice in the dataset, both times at 1592. Physics simulation scores 232, and find prime numbers scores only 18, the weakest result in the suite.

Because the Intel Core 7 160HL lacks any benchmark entries, the percentile comparison is stark: the Ryzen sits at the 62nd percentile, while the Intel part is recorded at the 50th percentile with no supporting test data. The absence of measured results for the Intel chip prevents any validated statement about its relative speed in the database. It is not possible to state which processor wins any specific workload based on recorded measurements alone.

The data does show that the Ryzen 3 3100U, despite its low core and thread counts, achieves an aggregate score comparable to 16-core and 24-thread desktop processors from several generations back. The 0.3% gap to the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and the 1.6% gap to the Core i9-7940X are within the range of normal run-to-run variance, so the database effectively ranks them as near equals in average score.

For the Intel Core 7 160HL, the database records no wins and no benchmark completions. The Ryzen 3 3100U likewise records zero wins in the head-to-head section, because no paired test results exist. The only conclusion the recorded data supports is that the AMD chip has extensive measured results and the Intel chip has none.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160HL have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 160HL has an empty benchmark array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rival entries. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U has 11 recorded PassMark test scores.

Q: How does the Ryzen 3 3100U compare to its nearest rivals in aggregate score?

A: The Ryzen 3 3100U averages 6247. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X scores 6231 (0.3% lower), the AMD EPYC 7272 scores 6186 (1% lower), the Intel Core i9-7940X scores 6147 (1.6% lower), and the Intel Core i9-10920X scores 6347 (1.6% higher).

Q: What is the Ryzen 3 3100U's strongest and weakest benchmark result?

A: Its strongest result is data compression at 38455. Its weakest is find prime numbers at 18. Physics simulation is also low at 232.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U has 2 cores and 2 threads. The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U boosts to 3.20 GHz. The Intel part also has a higher base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 1.90 GHz.

Q: What percentile ranking does each processor hold?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U is at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 160HL is at the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U and the Intel Core 7 160HL differ at nearly every level of architecture. AMD uses the Picasso codename, which belongs to the Zen+ microarchitecture, while Intel uses Raptor Lake-PS, based on the Raptor Lake architecture. The AMD part is manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the Intel part is built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the divergent designs. The Ryzen 3 3100U packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The Intel Core 7 160HL has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database, so no direct comparison of silicon area is possible.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD chip uses 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 4 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 on the Intel part aligns with its higher core count and Raptor Lake design, while the AMD part's smaller L3 reflects its older Zen+ heritage and dual-core configuration.

Memory support differs as well. The Ryzen 3 3100U supports DDR4 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel mode, though the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also splits along generational lines. The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 3. The Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU only. Integrated graphics differ: the Ryzen 3 3100U carries Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the Intel Core 7 160HL carries Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Production status shows both parts active. The Ryzen 3 3100U is classified in the mobile market segment, while the Intel Core 7 160HL is classified in the desktop segment. The Intel chip's socket is Intel Socket 1700, and the AMD chip uses AMD Socket FP5. The AMD part is marked as Ryzen 3 from the 3000 series, while the Intel part carries no series designation but is listed as Core 7.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on almost every specification field in the database. Core count: 2 cores for AMD versus 14 cores for Intel. Thread count: 2 threads for AMD versus 20 threads for Intel. Base clock: 1.90 GHz for AMD versus 2.50 GHz for Intel. Boost clock: 3.20 GHz for AMD versus 5.20 GHz for Intel. TDP: 15 watts for AMD versus 45 watts for Intel.

Process node: 12 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. Foundry: GlobalFoundries for AMD versus Intel for Intel. Socket: AMD Socket FP5 for the Ryzen versus Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7. Codename: Picasso for AMD versus Raptor Lake-PS for Intel. Generation: Ryzen 3 (Zen+ (Picasso)) for AMD versus Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS) for Intel.

Cache figures differ across all levels. L1 per core: 96 KB on AMD versus 80 KB on Intel. L2 per core: 512 KB on AMD versus 2 MB on Intel. L3 shared: 4 MB on AMD versus 24 MB on Intel.

Memory support: DDR4 only for AMD versus DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s recorded for AMD, none recorded for Intel. PCIe: Gen 3 for AMD versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only) for Intel. Integrated graphics: Radeon Vega 8 for AMD versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU for Intel. Market segment: Mobile for AMD versus Desktop for Intel. Release date: the AMD part is listed with a 2026 release date, while the Intel part is listed with a 2024 release date. Both have no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Fields where the two do not differ: both have dual-channel memory buses, both have ECC memory set to false, both have multiplier unlocking set to false, and both have production status set to Active. The AMD part number is YM3100C4T2OFG, while the Intel part number is listed as unknown.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U wins every category where a benchmark result exists, solely because the Intel Core 7 160HL has no measured scores in the database. The Ryzen chip has verified results in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread performance, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-thread performance. The Intel chip has zero entries in all of these categories.

The Ryzen 3 3100U's aggregate average of 6247 and 62nd percentile ranking place it ahead of the Intel Core 7 160HL's recorded 50th percentile and 0 average score. In the database's ranking structure, the AMD part currently occupies a measurable position while the Intel part remains uncharacterized.

The Intel Core 7 160HL holds advantages only in specifications, not measured performance. It offers more cores, more threads, higher base and boost clocks, a larger L3 cache, support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, and a 10 nm process node. Its 45-watt TDP is triple the AMD part's 15-watt TDP, which reflects the desktop segment classification.

For workloads that depend on single-thread speed, the Intel part's 5.20 GHz boost clock suggests an advantage, but no benchmark data confirms it. For workloads that depend on multithreading, the Intel part's 14 cores and 20 threads suggest a major advantage, but again no recorded scores exist to validate the expectation. The Ryzen 3 3100U's 2 cores and 2 threads limit its multithread ceiling, and its recorded multithread score of 3348 reflects that constraint.

The database's nearest-rival comparison for the Ryzen 3 3100U shows that it competes with 16-core and 24-thread desktop processors in aggregate score, which indicates that its per-core efficiency is high enough to offset its low core count in the benchmark mix. The Intel Core 7 160HL, with no scores, cannot be placed in any such comparison.

Use-case conclusions from the data are therefore one-sided. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U is the only part with validated performance in the database, making it the only choice for any workload where measured results matter. The Intel Core 7 160HL remains an unmeasured entry, with its specification sheet suggesting capabilities that the database does not yet confirm.