AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins 12 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 7 360 takes 5. The split is clear: AMD dominates in multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, extended instruction workloads, integer math, and multithread throughput. Intel counters in single-thread PassMark performance, floating-point math, prime number finding, and physics simulation.

For content creation and productivity workloads that scale across cores, the Ryzen 5 230 is the stronger pick. Its Cinebench sweep is complete, winning every multi-core and single-core iteration of R15, R20, and R23 by roughly 31% in each case. Data compression shows the largest gap, with AMD ahead by 53%. Random string sorting follows at 47.5% ahead. Integer math is the most lopsided result: the Ryzen 5 230 scores 96.4% higher than the Intel part.

The Intel Core 7 360 has its own territory. PassMark single-thread performance lands at 4274 versus 3558, a 16.8% advantage. Floating-point math favors Intel by 13.3%, physics simulation by 21%, and prime number finding by 45%. These wins point to workloads with heavy per-core scalar or FPU activity, plus certain math-heavy routines where Intel's architecture responds better. The Prime number result is notable: Intel scores 120 versus AMD's 66, a reversal of the overall trend.

The average benchmark scores reflect the split. The Ryzen 5 230 averages 25782 across the database, placing it in the 78th percentile of all CPUs. The Core 7 360 averages 18374, putting it in the 72nd percentile. AMD's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-11700K at 25812 (-0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 at 25981 (-0.8%), while Intel's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380 (0%) and the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2%). The Ryzen part competes at a higher overall performance tier despite both being six-core mobile processors.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs take fundamentally different design paths. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 uses Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm TSMC process with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core 7 360 uses Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm Intel process; transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Core and thread counts differ critically. Both have 6 cores, but the AMD part supports 12 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part runs 6 threads, one per core. This explains much of the multi-core gap. The AMD base clock is 3.50 GHz with a 4.90 GHz boost, while Intel sits at 1.50 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. AMD's higher base clock and thread count drive its Cinebench dominance.

Cache layouts are substantially different. The Ryzen 5 230 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Core 7 360 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 help single-thread and certain math workloads, while AMD's larger shared L3 pool benefits multi-threaded and data-heavy tasks.

Memory support diverges as well. AMD supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Neither supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ. AMD uses the Radeon 760M; Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Thermal design power favors Intel on paper: 15 W versus AMD's 28 W. Power draw is a meaningful differentiator for thin-and-light mobile designs. The AMD part is unlocked? No, both have locked multipliers. Release dates differ: AMD launched January 5, 2025, Intel on April 15, 2026. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $426.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are the cleanest story. In R15 multi-core, AMD scores 1799 to Intel's 1374, a 30.9% lead. R15 single-core: 253 to 193, 31.1% ahead. R20 multi-core: 7499 to 5726, 31% ahead. R20 single-core: 1058 to 808, 30.9% ahead. R23 multi-core: 17857 to 13634, 31% ahead. R23 single-core: 2521 to 1924, 31% ahead. Every Cinebench metric lands within a narrow 30.9% to 31.1% band, indicating a consistent architectural advantage across both single and multi-threaded rendering.

PassMark results show a more nuanced picture. Data compression: AMD 218588 versus Intel 142877, 53% ahead. This is the largest percentage win for AMD outside integer math. Random string sorting: 26019 to 17636, 47.5% ahead. Data encryption: 13280 to 11164, 19% ahead. Extended instructions: 15618 to 12390, 26.1% ahead. Integer math: 67257 to 34238, 96.4% ahead, nearly double. Multithread: 19411 to 15544, 24.9% ahead.

Intel's wins are concentrated but real. PassMark single-thread: 4274 to 3558, 16.8% ahead. Floating-point math: 44963 to 38993, 13.3% ahead. Physics: 1213 to 958, 21% ahead. Prime number finding: 120 to 66, 45% ahead. The physics and prime number results suggest Intel's per-core efficiency in certain scalar and branch-heavy workloads is strong despite the lower base clock.

Notably, the single-thread PassMark result contradicts the Cinebench single-core results. AMD wins all three Cinebench single-core tests by about 31%, yet Intel wins PassMark single-thread by 16.8%. The two suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance; Cinebench favors AMD's Zen 4 IPC while PassMark's mixed workload set favors Intel's Wildcat Lake design.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It leads by 30.9% in R15, 31% in R20, and 31% in R23 over the Intel Core 7 360.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 have any single-thread advantage?

A: Yes, in PassMark single-thread testing the Intel part scores 4274 versus 3558, a 16.8% lead. However, in Cinebench single-core tests, AMD wins by roughly 31% across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: Why is the AMD chip so much faster in integer math?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 scores 67257 in PassMark integer math versus 34238 for Intel, a 96.4% advantage. The combination of 12 threads versus 6 threads and AMD's larger 16 MB shared L3 cache contributes to this gap.

Q: Which workloads favor the Intel Core 7 360?

A: Floating-point math (44963 versus 38993, 13.3% ahead), physics simulation (1213 versus 958, 21% ahead), and prime number finding (120 versus 66, 45% ahead) all favor Intel. PassMark single-thread also favors Intel.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: AMD uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. AMD's memory subsystem provides roughly 50% more bandwidth on paper.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 has a 28 W TDP. Intel's lower power target suits thinner mobile chassis, though AMD's higher power budget enables higher sustained performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 is the faster processor in the majority of recorded workloads, winning 12 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its Cinebench sweep, 53% data compression lead, and 96.4% integer math advantage make it the choice for rendering, compression, encryption, and general productivity that scales with threads. The 78th percentile ranking and average score of 25782 place it near the Intel Core i7-11700K, a desktop-class part.

The Intel Core 7 360 is not without merit. Its 72nd percentile ranking and 18374 average score place it alongside the Intel Core i3-13100. It wins in floating-point math, physics, prime number finding, and PassMark single-thread. For workloads that stress per-core FPU throughput or specific math routines, Intel holds the edge. Its 15 W TDP also makes it the lower-power option, which matters in battery-constrained mobile designs.

The thread count difference is the structural story. Six cores with 12 threads versus six cores with 6 threads: AMD's simultaneous multithreading effectively doubles available threads, and the benchmark data reflects that in every multi-threaded test. The L3 cache difference, 16 MB versus 6 MB, reinforces AMD's advantage in data-heavy workloads. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches help its single-thread and math-specific wins, but cannot overcome the thread deficit in broad productivity.

For a buyer prioritizing raw compute across diverse workloads, the Ryzen 5 230 delivers more performance per the recorded data. For a buyer prioritizing low power draw, specific math workloads, or PassMark single-thread performance, the Core 7 360 has defined strengths. Neither part is universally faster; the choice depends on whether the workload mix favors AMD's thread-heavy design or Intel's per-core efficiency in select routines.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 230 | Intel Core 7 360 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 6 |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Wildcat Lake |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 760M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $426 |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |