AMD Ryzen 5 5605G vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Ryzen 5 5605G has no benchmark entries in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H carries a full suite of Cinebench and PassMark results. This asymmetry means the analysis must rely entirely on the Intel processor's measured performance, with the AMD chip's capabilities inferred from its architectural specifications rather than direct test scores.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 points, placing it in the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its single-core R23 result reaches 3,984 points. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 11,852 and single-core is 1,673. The older R15 test shows 2,844 multi-core and 401 single-core. These results indicate a processor that excels in heavily threaded workloads while maintaining competitive single-thread performance.

PassMark results for the Intel chip show a multi-thread score of 32,956 and a single-thread score of 4,005 (also recorded as 4,005 under the "singlethread" variant). The floating-point math test delivers 105,681, while integer math reaches 88,083. Data compression scores 312,927, and data encryption hits 25,228. Extended instructions produce 25,669, prime number finding scores 321, random string sorting reaches 38,093, and physics processing scores 2,857.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G, by contrast, has zero recorded benchmarks and a percentile rank of 50, which places it at the midpoint of the database distribution. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero. Without direct measurements, no head-to-head win can be attributed to the AMD part in any specific test.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on available data, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every benchmark category where scores exist. Its 16 cores and 16 threads provide substantial multi-core muscle, evidenced by the 28,221-point R23 result and 32,956 PassMark multi-thread score. The single-thread score of 4,005 suggests strong per-core efficiency, likely stemming from the 5.00 GHz boost clock.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G claims no wins in the database because no benchmark results are recorded for it. Its specifications suggest it would compete in different segments: 6 cores and 12 threads with a 4.40 GHz boost clock place it in the mainstream desktop category, while the Intel chip targets mobile high-performance laptops with its 25-watt TDP and BGA 2540 socket.

The use-case split is therefore dictated by availability of measurements. The Intel processor demonstrates verified capability across rendering, encryption, compression, and mathematical workloads. The AMD processor's profile must be assessed qualitatively: its Zen 3 architecture and 16 MB L3 cache suggest solid general-purpose desktop performance, but the database records no quantified results to confirm this.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G uses the Zen 3 architecture under the Cezanne codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 10,700 million transistors on a 180 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H employs the Panther Lake architecture (also its codename), fabricated on Intel's 3 nm node, with no transistor count or die size recorded.

Cache organization differs markedly. The AMD chip provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. This means the Intel processor has three times the L1 per core and nearly five times the L2 per core, while the L3 delta is smaller at 2 MB.

The core counts reflect distinct strategies. AMD uses 6 cores with simultaneous multi-threading to yield 12 threads. Intel uses 16 physical cores without SMT, yielding 16 threads. This explains why the Intel chip's multi-thread scores are so high despite a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz versus AMD's 3.90 GHz. The boost clocks also differ: Intel reaches 5.00 GHz, AMD tops out at 4.40 GHz.

Process nodes diverge significantly: 7 nm TSMC versus 3 nm Intel. The smaller node typically enables better power efficiency and higher transistor density, which aligns with the Intel chip's mobile target and 25-watt TDP. AMD's 65-watt TDP reflects its desktop orientation.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 5605G | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 6 | 16 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.90 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Panther Lake |

| Process node | 7 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 | 16 MB | 18 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Vega 7 | Arc B390 |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2025-02-23 | 2026-01-04 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

The memory bandwidth difference is striking: 51.2 GB/s for AMD versus 153.6 GB/s for Intel, a threefold advantage for the mobile chip. PCIe generations also differ, with Intel offering Gen 5 but only 4 lanes, while AMD provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Both support dual-channel memory and neither supports ECC. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,221 and a PassMark multi-thread score of 32,956. The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G has no benchmark scores recorded in the database.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, with no simultaneous multi-threading support.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G is rated at 65 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is rated at 25 watts.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors include?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G includes Radeon Vega 7 graphics. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 graphics.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 5605G and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H have an active production status in the database.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy, but it is one-sided due to missing AMD benchmarks. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40,518. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 7 253PE (0.1% lower score), Intel Core 5 223PE (0.2% lower), AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (0.2% higher), and Intel Xeon 6507P (0.2% higher). These deltas are tiny, indicating the Ultra X7 368H sits in a tightly contested performance band.

The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G holds a 50th percentile rank with zero recorded scores. Its specifications position it as a desktop part with fewer cores, higher base clock, and lower boost clock than the Intel chip. The 65-watt TDP and AM4 socket suggest it targets mainstream desktop builds, while the Intel chip's 25-watt TDP and BGA 2540 socket target mobile platforms.

For users seeking verified multi-threaded performance from the database, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the only option with measurements. Its 16-core configuration and 5.00 GHz boost clock deliver top-tier scores in the 87th percentile. The AMD Ryzen 5 5605G cannot be assessed for performance based on recorded data; its selection would rely on platform compatibility, the AM4 socket, unlocked multiplier, and desktop form factor rather than benchmark evidence. The database shows one fully characterized processor and one with no measurable results, so any comparison of wins must favor the Intel part by default.