AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs AMD Ryzen 7 160 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen 7 160, which wins 10 of the 11 recorded tests. The only exception is floating point math, where the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U delivers a striking 90.4% advantage. This single win, however, does little to offset the scale of the Ryzen 7 160's dominance in nearly every other workload category.

The largest margins appear in compute-heavy tasks. In extended instructions, the Ryzen 7 160 scores 16170 against 3274 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a delta of -79.8% from the perspective of the older chip. Integer math shows a similar gap: 81370 versus 26321, a 67.7% deficit for the Ryzen 5 3501U. Data compression results are also lopsided, with the Ryzen 7 160 reaching 242634 compared to 87380, a 64% difference. Data encryption follows the same pattern, with scores of 15520 and 5580 respectively, again a 64% gap.

Multithreaded performance, represented by the passmark_multithread score, favors the Ryzen 7 160 at 12237 versus 7071, a 42.2% lead. This aligns with the core and thread counts, as the Ryzen 7 160 offers double the cores and quadruple the threads. The single-thread score also clearly favors the Ryzen 7 160: 3435 versus 2136, a 37.8% advantage. This indicates that the newer architecture provides a substantial per-core performance uplift, not just a raw core-count advantage.

In more specialized tests, the Ryzen 7 160 maintains its lead. Random string sorting shows 25981 against 10414, a 59.9% difference. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to integer throughput, records 43 for the Ryzen 7 160 versus 21 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a 51.2% gap. The physics test, which often reflects broader system capabilities, shows 793 versus 483, a 39.1% difference.

The one bright spot for the Ryzen 5 3501U is floating point math, where it scores 12707 against the Ryzen 7 160's 6673. This 90.4% margin is the largest single-test delta in either direction across the entire comparison. The result suggests that the older Picasso architecture retains a specific strength in certain floating-point workloads, even as it loses ground everywhere else.

Overall average benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The Ryzen 7 160 posts an average of 37117, while the Ryzen 5 3501U manages 14320. This places the Ryzen 7 160 in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Ryzen 5 3501U sits in the 69th percentile. The Ryzen 7 160's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i9-12900T and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, have average scores within 0.1% of its result, confirming that it competes at a much higher performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark based on the recorded data. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 wins across almost every category that matters for general productivity, content creation, and multitasking. Its data compression score of 242634 indicates strong performance in file archiving and database workloads. The integer math score of 81370 supports heavy computational tasks like video encoding, spreadsheet calculations, and software compilation. The multithread score of 12237, combined with 8 cores and 16 threads, makes it the clear choice for parallel workloads such as rendering or running multiple virtual machines.

The Ryzen 7 160 also wins in tasks that rely on single-core speed. Its single-thread score of 3435 is 37.8% higher than the Ryzen 5 3501U's 2136. This means faster response times in everyday applications, quicker load times for individual programs, and better performance in lightly threaded games or legacy software. The extended instructions score of 16170 versus 3274 indicates a major advantage in modern instruction sets like AVX, which are used in scientific computing and some encryption algorithms.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U wins exactly one test: floating point math, with a score of 12707 versus 6673. This suggests that in specific numerical simulation tasks, financial modeling, or certain physics calculations that rely heavily on FPU throughput, the older chip holds a surprising edge. The 90.4% margin is not trivial, and software that is heavily optimized for floating-point operations could see a tangible benefit from choosing the Ryzen 5 3501U.

For all other workloads, including data encryption (15520 versus 5580), random string sorting (25981 versus 10414), and prime number finding (43 versus 21), the Ryzen 7 160 is the definitive winner. The data indicates that the Ryzen 5 3501U is not competitive outside of its narrow floating-point specialty.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U uses the Picasso codename, based on the Zen+ architecture, and is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Rembrandt-R codename with the Zen 3+ architecture, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. This process shrink is a fundamental factor in the performance gap, as it allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The core configuration differs significantly. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen 7 160 also has higher base and boost clocks: 2.70 GHz base and 4.75 GHz boost, compared to 2.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost for the Ryzen 5 3501U. These clock advantages compound with the core count to produce the large multithreaded score differences.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen 7 160 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the Ryzen 7 160 is four times the size, which helps with data-heavy workloads and reduces memory latency.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Ryzen 7 160 supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, exactly double. The Ryzen 7 160 also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 5 3501U does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Ryzen 5 3501U offers Gen 3, while the Ryzen 7 160 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics are also different. The Ryzen 5 3501U includes Radeon Vega 8, while the Ryzen 7 160 includes Radeon 680M. The newer Radeon 680M is part of the Zen 3+ platform and benefits from the newer architecture and memory support.

The transistor count is listed for the Ryzen 5 3501U at 4,940 million, while the Ryzen 7 160 does not have a recorded transistor count. Die size is identical at 210 mm² for both, despite the different process nodes. The socket differs as well: the Ryzen 5 3501U uses AMD Socket FP5, and the Ryzen 7 160 uses AMD Socket FP7.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 37117, compared to 14320 for the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U.

Q: How does the single-thread performance compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 3435 in the single-thread test, which is 37.8% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U's score of 2136.

Q: Is there any test where the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U wins?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 3501U wins the floating point math test with a score of 12707, which is 90.4% higher than the Ryzen 7 160's score of 6673.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s.

Q: How do their production processes differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U is manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the superior processor for nearly all workloads. It wins 10 of 11 benchmark tests, including the most important ones for general performance: multithread, single-thread, integer math, and data compression. Its 85th percentile ranking versus the Ryzen 5 3501U's 69th percentile confirms a substantial gap in overall capability.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U should only be considered for workloads that are exclusively floating-point intensive, given its 90.4% advantage in that specific test. However, this niche strength does not compensate for its losses in every other category, some of which are by margins exceeding 70%. The Ryzen 7 160's 8 cores, 16 threads, higher clock speeds, larger L3 cache, and double memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for any system where performance is the primary goal.

The Ryzen 7 160's nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i9-12900T and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, have average scores within 0.1%, indicating that it sits at a competitive performance level within its class. The Ryzen 5 3501U's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 and the Intel Core i5-10400F, are much closer in score, confirming its position in a lower performance tier. The choice between these two is straightforward: the Ryzen 7 160 for virtually any task, and the Ryzen 5 3501U only for a specific floating-point workload that can exploit its unique strength.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the recorded data:

• Series: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U is from the 3000 series. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has no series listed.
• Cores: 4 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 8 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Threads: 4 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 16 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Base Clock: 2.10 GHz (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 2.70 GHz (Ryzen 7 160).
• Boost Clock: 3.70 GHz (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 4.75 GHz (Ryzen 7 160).
• TDP: 15 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 28 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Socket: AMD Socket FP5 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus AMD Socket FP7 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Architecture: Not listed (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus Zen 3+ (Ryzen 7 160).
• Codename: Picasso (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus Rembrandt-R (Ryzen 7 160).
• Process Node: 12 nm (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 6 nm (Ryzen 7 160).
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus TSMC (Ryzen 7 160).
• Transistors: 4,940 million (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus not listed (Ryzen 7 160).
• L1 Cache: 96 KB per core (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 64 KB per core (Ryzen 7 160).
• L3 Cache: 4 MB shared (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 16 MB shared (Ryzen 7 160).
• Memory Support: DDR4 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus DDR5 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Memory Bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 76.8 GB/s (Ryzen 7 160).
• ECC Memory: False (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus True (Ryzen 7 160).
• PCIe: Gen 3 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) (Ryzen 7 160).
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon Vega 8 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus Radeon 680M (Ryzen 7 160).
• Release Date: 2026-05-31 (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 2025-09-30 (Ryzen 7 160).
• Part Number: YM3501C4T4MFG (Ryzen 5 3501U) versus 100-000000991(FP7r2) (Ryzen 7 160).