AMD Ryzen 5 150 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H across every recorded workload. In the 11 head-to-head PassMark tests, the Intel processor wins all 11, with the AMD Ryzen 5 150 trailing by margins ranging from 21.2% to 85.4%. The largest gap appears in the find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 321 against AMD’s 47, a deficit of 85.4%. This is not a narrow victory; it is a systematic outperformance in both integer and floating-point workloads.

The multithread score is particularly telling. Intel delivers 32,956 versus AMD’s 17,492, a 46.9% advantage. This aligns with the core count difference, but the margin exceeds the raw core ratio, indicating that Intel’s architecture extracts more throughput per core in heavily threaded tasks. In floating-point math, Intel scores 105,681 against 35,118, a 66.8% lead. This suggests that the Panther Lake design handles vectorized or scientific workloads far more efficiently than the Rembrandt-R silicon.

Single-thread performance also favors Intel, though by a smaller margin. The Core Ultra X7 368H records 4,005 points in the PassMark single-thread test, while the Ryzen 5 150 posts 3,155, a 21.2% difference. This is a meaningful gap for lightly threaded applications like legacy games or office tasks, but it is less dramatic than the multithread or physics deltas. The physics test shows Intel at 2,857 versus AMD’s 806, a 71.8% deficit for the AMD part, which points to a substantial difference in simulated or real-time physical calculations.

Data compression and encryption also favor Intel. The Intel chip scores 312,927 in data compression against 211,289, a 32.5% lead. In encryption, Intel records 25,228 versus 13,425, a 46.8% advantage. These results indicate that the Intel processor handles memory-intensive and cryptographic workloads with considerably higher throughput. Extended instructions, a measure of SIMD and specialized instruction efficiency, show Intel at 25,669 against AMD’s 14,675, a 42.8% lead. Random string sorting, another memory-bound test, gives Intel 38,093 and AMD 22,382, a 41.2% gap.

The average benchmark score reinforces this narrative. Intel’s average is 40,518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. AMD’s average is 34,881, which sits at the 84th percentile. While both are high-performing parts, the Intel chip is not merely ahead; it is positioned several percentile points higher, which reflects a broader margin across many workloads rather than a single outlier test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD’s Ryzen 5 150 uses the Zen 3+ architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 210 mm². Intel’s Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture on Intel’s 3 nm node. The process node difference is significant: Intel’s 3 nm process is more advanced than AMD’s 6 nm, which likely contributes to the Intel chip’s higher clock speeds and better power efficiency per transistor.

The core configuration diverges sharply. AMD offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel provides 16 cores and 16 threads. Intel has no hyperthreading, meaning each core is a single thread, but the sheer core count gives it a massive parallel advantage. The Ryzen 5 150’s base clock is 3.30 GHz with a boost of 4.55 GHz, while Intel’s base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost of 5.00 GHz. The lower base clock might indicate a more aggressive power management strategy, but the higher boost clock suggests Intel can reach higher peak frequencies under load.

Cache hierarchies also differ. AMD’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 is 512 KB per core, and L3 is 16 MB shared. Intel’s L1 cache is 192 KB per core, L2 is 2.5 MB per core, and L3 is 18 MB shared. Intel’s larger per-core L2 cache (2.5 MB versus 512 KB) is a substantial difference, likely improving data locality and reducing memory traffic in workloads that fit within the cache. The L3 difference is smaller (18 MB versus 16 MB), but Intel’s total cache footprint is larger.

Memory support differs as well. AMD supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Intel supports LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, exactly double AMD’s figure. This memory bandwidth advantage directly explains Intel’s superior performance in data compression and random string sorting, both of which are sensitive to memory throughput.

PCIe connectivity also differs. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). Intel’s PCIe Gen 5 standard is newer, but the lane count is dramatically lower. This means AMD has more available lanes for expansion devices, while Intel has fewer but faster lanes. The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 660M, while Intel uses the Arc B390. Both are capable integrated solutions, but the Arc B390 is paired with the higher memory bandwidth of LPDDR5X, which can benefit integrated graphics performance.

The socket and package also diverge: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7 with part number 100-000000990 (FP7r2), while Intel uses Intel BGA 2540 with part number SA4R7Q9EJ. Both are mobile segments and both are currently active production parts. AMD’s release date is 2025-09-30, while Intel’s is 2026-01-04, making Intel the newer release by roughly three months. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4,005 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 5 150 scores 3,155. Intel leads by 21.2%.

Q: How large is the multithread performance gap?

A: Intel scores 32,956 in the multithread test versus AMD’s 17,492, a 46.9% advantage for Intel. This is consistent with the core count difference (16 versus 6), but the margin exceeds the core ratio.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark?

A: No. In the 11 head-to-head PassMark tests recorded, the Intel part wins all 11. AMD does not win a single workload.

Q: What explains Intel’s lead in memory-bound tests?

A: Intel’s memory bandwidth is 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support, exactly double AMD’s 76.8 GB/s with DDR5. This directly benefits tests like data compression and random string sorting.

Q: Which processor has a smaller process node?

A: Intel uses a 3 nm process, while AMD uses a 6 nm process. Intel’s node is smaller, which typically allows for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Intel has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. AMD has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel’s L2 cache is five times larger per core.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. AMD uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel uses 16 cores and 16 threads. The base clock is 3.30 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel; the boost clock is 4.55 GHz for AMD and 5.00 GHz for Intel. TDP differs, with AMD at 35 watts and Intel at 25 watts, a notable advantage for Intel in power efficiency.

Process node: AMD is 6 nm (TSMC), Intel is 3 nm (Intel). Die size: AMD is 210 mm², Intel has no recorded die size. Cache: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3 shared. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared. Memory support: AMD uses DDR5, Intel uses LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: AMD is 76.8 GB/s, Intel is 153.6 GB/s. PCIe: AMD is Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel is Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: AMD has Radeon 660M, Intel has Arc B390. Socket: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7, Intel uses Intel BGA 2540. Architecture: AMD is Zen 3+ (Rembrandt-R), Intel is Panther Lake. Release date: AMD is 2025-09-30, Intel is 2026-01-04. Part number: AMD is 100-000000990 (FP7r2), Intel is SA4R7Q9EJ. Both lack ECC memory support, both are mobile segment, both are active production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier or a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H as the superior processor in every measured dimension. With 11 wins out of 11 head-to-head tests, a higher average benchmark score (40,518 versus 34,881), and a higher percentile rank (87th versus 84th), Intel is the clear performance leader. The margin is not small: in the most extreme test (find prime numbers), Intel is 85.4% ahead, and in floating-point math, it is 66.8% ahead. Even in the closest test (single-thread), Intel leads by 21.2%.

The AMD Ryzen 5 150 does have advantages in specific areas that the benchmark scores do not fully capture. It offers 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus Intel’s 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which matters for systems with multiple expansion devices. It also has a higher TDP (35 watts versus 25 watts), which could indicate a different power budget philosophy, but the data shows that Intel achieves better performance with a lower TDP. AMD’s 6-core, 12-thread design may be sufficient for certain mobile workloads, but the benchmark evidence shows it is consistently behind Intel across all measured tasks.

For users prioritizing raw performance, particularly in multithreaded, floating-point, or memory-intensive applications, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice. For users who require more PCIe lanes for expansion or who prefer AMD’s platform, the Ryzen 5 150 remains a functional option, but the performance gap cannot be ignored.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the head-to-head data. This includes data compression (312,927 versus 211,289), data encryption (25,228 versus 13,425), extended instructions (25,669 versus 14,675), find prime numbers (321 versus 47), floating-point math (105,681 versus 35,118), integer math (88,083 versus 62,151), multithread (32,956 versus 17,492), physics (2,857 versus 806), random string sorting (38,093 versus 22,382), and single-thread (4,005 versus 3,155). There is no workload category in the database where the AMD processor takes a win.

The AMD Ryzen 5 150’s only comparative advantages are structural rather than benchmark-driven. It provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which is five times the lane count of Intel’s 4 Gen 5 lanes. It also has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz), which could be beneficial in power-constrained scenarios where sustained low-frequency operation is preferred. However, the benchmark data does not include tests that isolate these factors, so their practical impact is not quantified here.

In practical terms, the Intel part is the choice for any workload that relies on the measured benchmarks: compression, encryption, scientific math, physics simulation, or general multithreaded productivity. The AMD part might be considered for systems needing more PCIe lanes, but the performance deficit of 21.2% to 85.4% across all measured tests is a decisive factor. The data shows no scenario where the AMD processor delivers a higher score.