AMD Ryzen 5 7400 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 and Intel Core Ultra 5 336H serve completely different markets, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The Ryzen 5 7400 is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop processor on Socket AM5 with a 65 W TDP, built for users who want a socketed, upgradeable platform with overclocking. The Core Ultra 5 336H is a 16-core, 16-thread mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540 with a 25 W TDP, designed for laptops where power efficiency and space matter more than socket flexibility.

Looking strictly at the recorded measurements, the Core Ultra 5 336H wins 10 of 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Ryzen 5 7400 wins only one. The Intel part's average benchmark score is 34,485, placing it in the 84th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part averages 42,055, placing it in the 88th percentile. This is an unusual situation: the AMD chip has a higher overall average score and percentile rank, yet loses most direct comparisons because the Intel chip's wins are concentrated in multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads where it dominates by large margins.

For a desktop builder who already owns or plans to buy an AM5 motherboard, the Ryzen 5 7400 is the obvious choice. It delivers competitive multi-threaded performance with a lower average score gap than the direct rival list suggests, and it offers an unlocked multiplier, which the Intel part lacks. For anyone shopping for a thin-and-light laptop or a compact mobile workstation, the Core Ultra 5 336H is the only option in practical terms, since the AMD chip is a desktop part and cannot be installed in a mobile chassis.

The data indicates that if forced to choose between these two for a single, fixed workload, the Intel part is the stronger performer in the majority of tests. However, the platform context matters more: the Ryzen 5 7400 goes into a desktop with a discrete GPU, while the Core Ultra 5 336H ships in a laptop with integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics. The benchmark results do not account for platform-level differences like power delivery, cooling, or GPU pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, manufactured on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It packs 6,570 million transistors into a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, codenamed Panther Lake, manufactured on a 3 nm process by Intel. The Intel part does not have recorded transistor or die size data.

The Ryzen 5 7400 features 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning each core handles two threads simultaneously. The Core Ultra 5 336H features 16 cores and 16 threads, which indicates a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio, a design choice that prioritizes raw core count over simultaneous multithreading. This architectural difference explains why the Intel part excels in heavily parallel workloads like floating-point math and physics simulations.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Ryzen 5 7400 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core Ultra 5 336H provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches suggest a design aimed at reducing memory latency for single-threaded tasks, while the AMD part's smaller per-core caches are offset by higher base and boost clocks.

Memory support diverges as well. The Ryzen 5 7400 supports DDR5 only, with a dual-channel memory bus and 83.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core Ultra 5 336H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part's higher bandwidth and support for low-power memory make it suitable for mobile designs where power consumption and thermal envelope are critical.

PCIe connectivity differs: the Ryzen 5 7400 offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Core Ultra 5 336H offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part's higher lane count suits desktop expansion cards, multiple NVMe drives, and high-end GPUs. The Intel part's reduced lane count reflects mobile design constraints where space and power limit expansion options.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Ryzen 5 7400 includes Radeon Graphics, while the Core Ultra 5 336H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The Intel part's newer graphics architecture, combined with its lower TDP, suggests it is better suited for sustained mobile workloads without a discrete GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores. The Intel part also has 16 threads, matching its core count, whereas the AMD part has 12 threads from its 6 cores.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H does not support ECC memory.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 overclockable?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 7400 has an unlocked multiplier, so it supports user overclocking. The Core Ultra 5 336H has a locked multiplier and does not support overclocking.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H offers 115.2 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 offers 83.2 GB/s. The Intel part also supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5, while the AMD part supports DDR5 only.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H boosts to 4.60 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7400's 4.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has an average benchmark score of 42,055, which is higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H's average of 34,485. The AMD part also ranks in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Intel part's 84th percentile.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H:

• Cores: 6 (AMD) vs. 16 (Intel)
• Threads: 12 (AMD) vs. 16 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 3.30 GHz (AMD) vs. 1.90 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 4.30 GHz (AMD) vs. 4.60 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 65 W (AMD) vs. 25 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket AM5 (AMD) vs. Intel BGA 2540 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 4 (AMD) vs. Panther Lake (Intel)
• Process Node: 5 nm TSMC (AMD) vs. 3 nm Intel (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) vs. 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs. 2.5 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 16 MB shared (AMD) vs. 18 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (AMD) vs. DDR5 and LPDDR5X (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s (AMD) vs. 115.2 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC Memory: Supported (AMD) vs. not supported (Intel)
• PCIe Lanes: Gen 5, 24 lanes (AMD) vs. Gen 5, 12 lanes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon Graphics (AMD) vs. Intel Xe3 Graphics (Intel)
• Market Segment: Desktop (AMD) vs. Mobile (Intel)
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes (AMD) vs. No (Intel)
• Part Number: 100-000001900 (AMD) vs. SA4RD (Intel)
• Release Date: 2025-09-15 (AMD) vs. 2026-01-04 (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H dominates the head-to-head comparisons, winning 10 of 11 tests. The largest margin comes in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the Intel part scores 299 versus the AMD part's 79, a delta of -73.6% in favor of Intel. This test heavily favors the Intel part's 16 cores and larger cache hierarchy.

In passmark_floating_point_math, the Intel part scores 82,415 versus the AMD part's 40,784, a 50.5% advantage. This result indicates that the Intel part's core count and architecture handle floating-point operations far more efficiently. Similarly, passmark_physics shows the Intel part scoring 2,682 versus the AMD part's 1,150, a 57.1% lead.

The passmark_multithread test shows the Intel part at 28,545 versus the AMD part's 21,712, a 23.9% advantage. This is a meaningful margin, but not as large as the floating-point or prime-number gaps. The Intel part also wins passmark_data_encryption with 21,291 versus 14,865, a 30.2% lead, and passmark_extended_instructions with 24,542 versus 19,924, an 18.8% lead.

Single-threaded performance also favors Intel. The passmark_single_thread test shows the Intel part scoring 4,013 versus the AMD part's 3,248, a 19.1% advantage. This aligns with the Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz and larger per-core caches. The passmark_random_string_sorting test shows a narrower Intel win: 34,402 versus 31,110, a 9.6% margin.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 wins exactly one test: passmark_integer_math. The AMD part scores 64,733 versus the Intel part's 62,070, a 4.3% advantage. This indicates that the AMD part's higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and Zen 4 integer pipeline handle integer-heavy workloads slightly better, despite having far fewer cores.

The passmark_data_compression test shows a close Intel win: 280,340 versus 261,749, a 6.6% margin. This test is less lopsided than others, suggesting that the AMD part's 12 threads compete reasonably in compression workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins in almost every measurable category, but the magnitude of the wins varies. Its largest advantages come in prime-number finding (73.6% ahead), floating-point math (50.5% ahead), and physics (57.1% ahead). These are compute-heavy, parallel workloads where 16 cores provide a decisive edge over 6 cores. The Intel part also wins in encryption (30.2% ahead), single-threaded performance (19.1% ahead), and multithreaded performance (23.9% ahead), making it the stronger choice for scientific computing, video rendering, and general productivity.

The Intel part's 25 W TDP and mobile socket mean it is intended for laptops, where sustained workloads like compiling code or running virtual machines benefit from its core count. Its support for LPDDR5X memory and higher memory bandwidth (115.2 GB/s) further supports memory-intensive tasks in a power-constrained environment.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 wins only in integer math, with a 4.3% margin. This is a narrow but real advantage for workloads that rely heavily on integer operations, such as database transactions, some cryptography, and certain game logic. The AMD part's higher base clock (3.30 GHz) and unlocked multiplier allow it to sustain high integer throughput per core, even with fewer cores.

For a desktop user who values overclocking, ECC memory support, and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the Ryzen 5 7400 is the clear pick despite losing most benchmarks. Its 88th percentile ranking and average score of 42,055 place it among stronger CPUs overall, and its platform advantages (AM5 socket, upgrade path) make it a practical choice for a DIY build. The Intel part, with its 84th percentile and average score of 34,485, is a mobile chip that cannot be repurposed into a desktop, so its benchmark wins are only relevant if the user is buying a laptop.

In summary, the data shows the Core Ultra 5 336H is the faster processor in nearly all workloads, but the Ryzen 5 7400 is the more versatile desktop component. Each wins in its intended market segment: Intel in mobile performance per watt, AMD in desktop flexibility and integer throughput.