AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H across all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 does not register a single win. The margins vary widely, from a relatively close single-thread gap to a dominant lead in floating-point math.

The largest single-thread advantage appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel part scores 3984 against the AMD's 2521, a delta of -36.7% from the AMD perspective. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar story: 401 versus 253, a -36.9% delta. The PassMark single-thread test is the closest contest in the entire set, with the Intel chip scoring 4005 versus 3558, a -11.2% delta. This indicates that while the Intel architecture has a clear per-core performance edge, the gap narrows when the workload is purely single-threaded and short.

Multithreaded throughput swings much further in Intel's favor. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 28221 for the Intel part against 17857 for the AMD, a -36.7% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern: 11852 versus 7499, also -36.7%. The PassMark multithread test delivers 32956 versus 19411, a -41.1% delta. These results align with the core-count disparity, as the Intel chip fields 16 cores while the AMD part has 6.

The most extreme delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel part scores 321 and the AMD scores 66, a -79.4% delta. This workload is highly sensitive to integer throughput and core parallelism, and the Intel part overwhelms the AMD design here. PassMark floating-point math also shows a massive gap: 105681 versus 38993, a -63.1% delta. PassMark physics follows with 2857 versus 958, a -66.5% delta. These three tests reveal that the Intel processor is not just faster, it is several times faster in specific mathematical and physics-based simulations.

Data compression shows a -30.1% delta (312927 versus 218588), while data encryption shows a -47.4% delta (25228 versus 13280). Extended instructions land at -39.2% (25669 versus 15618). Integer math is the smallest multi-threaded gap at -23.6% (88083 versus 67257), and random string sorting sits at -31.7% (38093 versus 26019). Across every category, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H delivers higher scores, with the average benchmark score for the Intel part at 40518 versus 25782 for the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 single-core score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 3984, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 scores 2521, giving Intel a -36.7% delta advantage.

Q: How large is the gap in PassMark floating-point math?

A: The Intel part scores 105681 versus 38993 for the AMD, a -63.1% delta. This is one of the largest gaps in the entire comparison.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 230 win any benchmark in the head-to-head data?

A: No. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests.

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

A: The PassMark single-thread test, where the Intel part scores 4005 and the AMD scores 3558, a -11.2% delta.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has an average benchmark score of 40518, while the AMD Ryzen 5 230 has 25782. The Intel part sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, the AMD at the 78th.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel part has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD part has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It uses 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. Its cache layout includes 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The integrated GPU is a Radeon 760M. The socket is AMD Socket FP8.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake architecture, also known as Panther Lake-H, on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. Cache sizes are larger: 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, a substantial increase over the AMD part. PCIe is Gen 5 with 4 lanes from the CPU. The integrated GPU is an Arc B390. The socket is Intel BGA 2540.

The core count difference is the defining architectural split: 16 cores and 16 threads for Intel versus 6 cores and 12 threads for AMD. The Intel part lacks simultaneous multithreading, so thread count equals core count, while the AMD part uses SMT to double its 6 cores into 12 threads. Despite that, the Intel part still wins every multithreaded test. Base clock for the AMD is 3.50 GHz with a boost of 4.90 GHz; the Intel base is 2.00 GHz with a boost of 5.00 GHz. The Intel boost clock is marginally higher, but its base clock is much lower. TDP is 28 W for the AMD and 25 W for the Intel, both in the mobile segment and both actively produced.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. The AMD part was released in January 2025; the Intel part followed in January 2026. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H holds the higher percentile ranking at 87 versus 78 for the AMD Ryzen 5 230. Its average benchmark score of 40518 is roughly 57% higher than the AMD's 25782. In every recorded head-to-head test, the Intel part wins, often by double-digit margins and sometimes by more than 60%.

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 is not without merit. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 4.90 GHz boost clock provides a compact, lower-core alternative. It also has a much smaller cache footprint and lower memory bandwidth, which aligns with its lower core count. However, the benchmark data does not show any workload category where it surpasses the Intel part. The Intel part is superior in single-thread, multithread, integer, floating-point, compression, encryption, and physics workloads.

For a user selecting strictly on recorded performance, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the stronger choice in every measured dimension. The AMD part would only be relevant if the system requires its specific socket, its 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, or its Radeon 760M integrated graphics, factors that the benchmark scores do not capture. The data alone cannot justify choosing the AMD part on performance grounds.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen 5 230 has 6 cores and 12 threads; the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz for AMD and 5.00 GHz for Intel. TDP is 28 W for AMD and 25 W for Intel.

Cache structures diverge sharply. The AMD part uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 for AMD versus LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for AMD versus 153.6 GB/s for Intel. PCIe is Gen 4 with 20 lanes for AMD versus Gen 5 with 4 lanes for Intel.

The manufacturing process differs: 4 nm TSMC for AMD versus 3 nm Intel for the Intel part. The AMD die size is 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors; the Intel die size and transistor count are not recorded. Sockets are AMD Socket FP8 and Intel BGA 2540. Integrated graphics are Radeon 760M for AMD and Arc B390 for Intel. The AMD part uses the Zen 4 / Hawk Point architecture; the Intel part uses Panther Lake. Neither supports ECC memory, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are mobile, active production parts. Release dates are January 2025 for AMD and January 2026 for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in every benchmark category recorded. The largest wins are in PassMark find prime numbers (-79.4%), PassMark floating-point math (-63.1%), and PassMark physics (-66.5%). These suggest a strong advantage in mathematical computation, physics simulation, and prime-number workloads. The smallest win is in PassMark single-thread (-11.2%), indicating that the Intel part's single-core advantage, while clear, is not overwhelming.

The AMD Ryzen 5 230 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only potential advantages lie outside the benchmark data: it uses the AMD Socket FP8 platform, has 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus the Intel part's 4 Gen 5 lanes, and carries a Radeon 760M integrated GPU. The database shows no performance scenario where the AMD part outperforms the Intel part. For workloads that rely on the specific capabilities of the Intel architecture, such as its larger L3 cache, higher memory bandwidth, or 16 physical cores, the Intel part is the correct selection. For workloads that require AMD's platform features, the AMD part remains an option, but not one validated by any measured performance win.