AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single recorded test. Across 15 head-to-head comparisons, the AMD Ryzen 5 40 does not take a single victory. The database shows 15 wins for the Intel part and 0 for the AMD part. That is a total sweep, which makes the use-case split unusually simple: the Intel chip is the choice for every workload category represented in the measurements.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does hold a meaningful position in the broader database context. Its average benchmark score of 15882 places it in the 70th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 75F3 (scoring 15859, just 0.1% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U (scoring 15910, 0.2% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9354P (scoring 15826, 0.4% behind). This suggests the Ryzen 5 40 is a competent low-power mobile processor for its class, but it is competing in a completely different performance tier than the Ultra 7 366H.

The Intel part sits at the 87th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 41263. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (scoring 41215, 0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (scoring 41208, 0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (scoring 41376, 0.3% ahead). The Ultra 7 366H is clearly working at a much higher performance level, roughly 2.6 times the average score of the Ryzen 5 40.

For workloads like rendering, physics simulation, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math, the Intel processor is the only sensible pick based on the data. The AMD processor would only be relevant for users who prioritize the specific attributes that differentiate it, such as a lower thermal design power or a different platform socket, not for raw benchmark performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The Intel part is two full process generations ahead in node size, which directly contributes to its higher transistor density and efficiency in this comparison.

Core counts differ dramatically. The AMD chip has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel chip has 16 cores and 16 threads. That is a 4x difference in core count, and the Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading (16 threads equals 16 cores), whereas the AMD part doubles its threads through SMT. The Intel part compensates for the lack of SMT with sheer core count and a higher boost clock.

Cache layouts are also very different. The AMD processor has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel L3 cache is 4.5 times larger, and the per-core L2 is 5 times larger.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD chip supports LPDDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 88.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel memory bandwidth is roughly 31% higher, which helps in memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part provides both a newer PCIe generation and three times the lane count, which matters for connecting high-speed peripherals like discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

The integrated graphics also differ: the AMD chip uses the Radeon 610M, while the Intel chip uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not provide iGPU benchmark scores, so the comparison is limited to the fact that both have integrated solutions.

The TDP rating also separates the two. The AMD processor is rated at 15 watts, while the Intel processor is rated at 25 watts. The Intel part consumes more power, but it also delivers far higher performance, which the benchmark scores confirm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-core margin in the Cinebench tests appears in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 40 at 1150, a delta of -71.4% from the AMD perspective. That means the Intel chip is roughly 3.5 times faster in that test. The R15 single-core test shows a similar story: Intel at 405 versus AMD at 165.5, a delta of -59.1%.

Multi-core scores are even more lopsided. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 28477 versus the AMD part at 4841, a delta of -83%. That is almost a 6x difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows Intel at 2870 versus AMD at 790, a delta of -72.5%. The Intel part scales its core advantage into massive multi-threaded wins.

PassMark results reinforce the pattern. The largest delta in the entire dataset is in the find prime numbers test: Intel at 326 versus AMD at 20, a delta of -93.9%. That is a 16.3x difference. Floating-point math shows Intel at 103615 versus AMD at 15194, a delta of -85.3%. The physics test shows Intel at 2880 versus AMD at 432, a delta of -85%. These are all cases where the Intel architecture's newer node and higher core count produce overwhelming advantages.

The smallest delta in the dataset is in the PassMark single-thread tests (both single_thread and singlethread report the same values): Intel at 4043 versus AMD at 2477, a delta of -38.7%. Even in the most favorable test for the AMD chip, the Intel part still leads by a wide margin. Data compression shows Intel at 327455 versus AMD at 141533, a delta of -56.8%. Data encryption shows Intel at 25845 versus AMD at 6646, a delta of -74.3%. Extended instructions show Intel at 26901 versus AMD at 6437, a delta of -76.1%. Integer math shows Intel at 83695 versus AMD at 31598, a delta of -62.2%. Random string sorting shows Intel at 39814 versus AMD at 15124, a delta of -62%. The multithread test shows Intel at 33429 versus AMD at 9341, a delta of -72.1%.

The pattern is consistent: the Intel processor wins every single test, with deltas ranging from -38.7% to -93.9%. The AMD processor's best showing is in single-threaded workloads, but even there it trails by nearly 39%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 supports 88.0 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a smaller process node?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 is built on a 6 nm process at TSMC.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Intel processor scores 326 versus the AMD processor at 20, a delta of -93.9%.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. Neither the AMD Ryzen 5 40 nor the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports ECC memory according to the database.

Q: What integrated graphics do the two processors use?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Radeon 610M. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 40 | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 16 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FT6 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Mendocino | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

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

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 4 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 610M | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-01-04 |

The Intel part has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz), while the AMD part has a higher base clock (2.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz). The Intel part uses a newer socket (Intel BGA 2540 versus AMD Socket FT6). The AMD part has a smaller die size at 100 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a known part number (SA4R9Q9EL), while the AMD part number is listed as unknown.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the stronger processor in every measured dimension. Its 16 cores, 3 nm process, 18 MB of L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 support, and higher memory bandwidth combine to produce benchmark scores that dwarf the AMD Ryzen 5 40. The database shows the Intel processor at the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD processor sits at the 70th percentile.

For anyone building a laptop or compact system where raw performance matters, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the only choice supported by these measurements. It wins multi-core rendering by margins of 72% to 83%, wins single-core tests by 38% to 71%, and wins every PassMark workload by at least 38%. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 cannot keep pace in any recorded test.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does have one differentiating attribute: its 15 W TDP rating versus the Intel part's 25 W rating. For systems where power draw is the primary constraint, the AMD chip might be preferable despite its lower performance. The smaller die size (100 mm² versus no recorded die size for Intel) and the older Zen 2 architecture also make it a lighter part in terms of physical footprint.

But the verdict from the benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H delivers roughly 2.6 times the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen 5 40. It wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons. It offers more cores, more cache, a newer process, faster memory, and a newer PCIe interface. The only scenario where the AMD chip makes sense is one where the 15 W power envelope is a hard requirement and performance is secondary. For everything else, the Intel processor is the superior part according to every metric in the database.