AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 16 of 17 recorded comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 takes a single, but notable, victory. The scale of Intel's advantage varies wildly by workload, ranging from a narrow 2.9% margin to a crushing 79.8% deficit for AMD.

The largest single gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. Intel scores 327 against AMD's 66, a delta of -79.8%. This is not merely a win, it is a category-level difference in integer workload throughput. Floating point math shows a similar trend: Intel posts 103128 versus 38993, a 62.2% advantage. These two results alone indicate that the Intel part has a fundamentally higher compute ceiling for mathematically intensive tasks.

Multi-threaded rendering benchmarks show Intel ahead, but the margin narrows as the workload becomes more sustained. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 3055 against 1799, a 41.1% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is 38.3% (12153 vs 7499). But in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the difference shrinks dramatically to only 2.9% (18395 vs 17857). This compression suggests that under longer sustained loads, the AMD chip's efficiency or power management allows it to close much of the raw core-count gap.

Single-core results split the two processors. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel wins 303 to 253, a 16.5% margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, Intel wins 1715 to 1058, a 38.3% margin. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD turns the tables with a 2521 score against Intel's 2040, a 23.6% win. This is AMD's only head-to-head victory, and it is substantial. The pattern across the three Cinebench generations is inconsistent, which points to different boost behaviors under varying test durations.

PassMark's system-level tests reinforce Intel's dominance. Data compression shows Intel at 336177 versus 218588, a 35% lead. Data encryption shows Intel at 26345 versus 13280, a 49.6% lead. Extended instructions (SIMD-heavy work) favor Intel by 44% (27898 vs 15618). Integer math favors Intel by 19.1% (83111 vs 67257). Random string sorting favors Intel by 36.5% (40990 vs 26019).

The PassMark multi-thread score gives Intel 33978 against AMD's 19411, a 42.9% lead. The physics test is even more lopsided: Intel 2895, AMD 958, a 66.9% difference. Single-thread PassMark results show Intel ahead by 12.6% (4072 vs 3558). Across these tests, Intel's advantage is broad and consistent, but the magnitude varies from roughly 13% to nearly 80%.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins across nearly every measured category. Its strongest areas are prime number calculation (79.8% lead), physics simulation (66.9% lead), floating point math (62.2% lead), and data encryption (49.6% lead). These are compute-heavy, parallel-friendly workloads where the 16-core, 16-thread configuration provides a clear structural advantage. Data compression and extended instruction tests also fall firmly in Intel's column, with 35% and 44% leads respectively.

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins in Cinebench R23 single-core, posting 2521 against Intel's 2040. This indicates that for lightly threaded, short-duration bursts, the AMD architecture with its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz (versus Intel's 4.70 GHz) delivers better peak performance. The Ryzen 5 230 also stays competitive in Cinebench R23 multi-core, trailing by only 2.9%. That result suggests that in prolonged multi-threaded rendering, the practical difference is minor, even though Intel holds 16 cores versus AMD's 6.

For integer math, the gap narrows to 19.1%, which is significant but far smaller than the 62.2% floating point gap. This indicates that AMD's per-core integer throughput is relatively stronger, but Intel's core count overwhelms it in aggregate. Random string sorting, a memory-latency sensitive test, shows a 36.5% Intel lead, consistent with its higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s against AMD's 89.6 GB/s.

The data does not show any test, apart from Cinebench R23 single-core, where AMD leads. Even in PassMark single-thread, Intel holds a 12.6% edge. The use-case split is therefore clear: AMD wins strictly in one specific single-core rendering scenario, while Intel dominates everything else measured.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 uses the Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the Hawk Point codename. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The package is rated at 28 W TDP and uses the AMD Socket FP8. The chip has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Panther Lake architecture on Intel's own 3 nm process. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The TDP is 25 W, slightly lower than AMD's. It uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. Intel's process node is one step smaller (3 nm versus 4 nm), though Intel's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ considerably. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, plus a larger shared L3, contribute to its strong performance in cache-sensitive tests like data compression and random string sorting.

Memory support also differs. AMD supports DDR5 with dual-channel access and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. That 28.6% bandwidth advantage (115.2 versus 89.6) aligns with Intel's wins in memory-heavy benchmarks.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Intel provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Intel's PCIe 5.0 support offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though with fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ. AMD uses the Radeon 760M, while Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include GPU benchmark scores, so no performance comparison is possible from this data.

Both processors are mobile parts, currently active in production, with locked multipliers. Neither supports ECC memory. AMD's release date is 2025-01-05, while Intel's is 2026-01-04, a gap of roughly one year. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a straightforward conclusion for most workloads: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the stronger processor. Its average benchmark score of 41215 places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the AMD Ryzen 5 230 averages 25782 and sits in the 78th percentile. Intel's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (delta 0%) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (delta -0.1%), meaning the 356H is essentially tied with those parts at the top of its performance band. The AMD Ryzen 5 230, by contrast, trades blows with the Intel Core i7-11700K (delta -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655GE (delta -0.4%).

For users whose primary workload is Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering, the difference is nearly negligible at 2.9%. For users who rely on Cinebench R23 single-core performance, the AMD part is the better choice, with a 23.6% lead. But for everything else measured, from encryption to physics to floating point math, the Intel part delivers between 12.6% and 79.8% higher scores.

The Intel chip also brings newer process technology (3 nm versus 4 nm), a newer architecture (Panther Lake versus Zen 4 Hawk Point), larger caches, higher memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 support. The AMD chip counters with a higher boost clock, a lower average benchmark score, and a single benchmark win.

The data does not support choosing the AMD Ryzen 5 230 for general-purpose or compute-heavy mobile work. It does support choosing it for a specific single-core rendering scenario where its Cinebench R23 single-core score is superior. For all other measured tasks, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is the statistically dominant part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has an average benchmark score of 41215, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 scores 25782. Intel sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, AMD in the 78th.

Q: Is there any test where the AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 wins Cinebench R23 single-core with a score of 2521 against Intel's 2040, a 23.6% advantage.

Q: How large is Intel's biggest performance lead?

A: Intel's largest lead is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 327 versus AMD's 66, a 79.8% gap.

Q: Do the two processors have the same number of cores?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 115.2 GB/s, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 230's 89.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the closest benchmark result between the two?

A: Cinebench R23 multi-core is the closest, with Intel at 18395 and AMD at 17857, a 2.9% difference.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 boosts to 4.90 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 230 | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not recorded |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not recorded |

| 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) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-01-04 |

| Part number | 100-000001726 | SA4RGQ9EU |

Both processors are mobile parts with active production status, locked multipliers, no ECC memory support, and no recorded launch MSRP in the database.