AMD Ryzen 5 7400 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture: the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins every single head-to-head comparison against the AMD Ryzen 5 7400. Across the eleven PassMark tests recorded in the database, the Intel part takes all eleven, with the AMD processor failing to secure a single victory. The largest margins belong to the Intel chip in floating-point math, physics, and prime-number workloads, where it leads by 60.7%, 61.9%, and 76.6% respectively. For users selecting between these two, the decision hinges on form factor and platform priorities rather than raw performance, since the Ryzen 5 7400 is a desktop part on AMD Socket AM5 while the Core Ultra X7 358H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 2540. The desktop chip does hold a notable advantage in platform flexibility with an unlocked multiplier, but the data shows the mobile Intel part is consistently faster in every measured workload. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 should be chosen by builders who need a desktop platform, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and ECC memory support. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H should be the pick for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput, single-thread performance, and power efficiency, as it delivers superior scores in every category while carrying a 25 W TDP compared to the AMD part's 65 W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing ecosystems. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Raphael codename, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a transistor count of 6,570 million and a die size of 71 mm². The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename from the Ultra X7 family, manufactured on Intel's own 3 nm process with no transistor or die size figures recorded in the database. The AMD part is a 6-core, 12-thread design, while the Intel chip doubles the core count to 16 cores but keeps threads at 16, indicating a hybrid architecture where not all cores support simultaneous multithreading. Cache hierarchies differ substantially: the Ryzen 5 7400 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H carries 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's larger per-core caches align with its higher core count and thread configuration. Process node advantages favor Intel here, as its 3 nm node is smaller than AMD's 5 nm node, though the AMD chip is built by TSMC while Intel fabricates its own silicon. The AMD processor is a desktop part with an active production status, released in September 2025, while the Intel chip targets the mobile segment with a release date in January 2026. Both support DDR5-family memory, but the Intel part uses LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, nearly double the AMD chip's 83.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5. The AMD processor supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. PCIe lane allocation also diverges sharply: the Ryzen 5 7400 offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU, whereas the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H provides only 4 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the AMD part featuring Radeon Graphics and the Intel chip carrying Arc B390.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table in the database shows a clean sweep for Intel, but the magnitude of each win varies considerably by workload. In multi-threaded performance, measured by PassMark's multithread test, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 33,802 against the Ryzen 5 7400's 21,712, a 35.8% advantage. The 16-core Intel design leverages its additional cores effectively in this throughput-oriented workload. Single-thread performance follows the same direction but with a smaller margin: the Intel chip scores 4,124 versus 3,248 for AMD, a 21.2% lead that reflects the higher 4.80 GHz boost clock on the Intel part compared to 4.30 GHz on the AMD chip. The largest disparity appears in floating-point math, where Intel scores 103,842 against AMD's 40,784, a 60.7% gap that suggests a substantially wider execution pipeline for FP workloads. Physics simulation shows a similar chasm, with Intel at 3,021 versus AMD's 1,150, a 61.9% deficit for the desktop part. Prime number finding is the most lopsided test: Intel scores 337 while AMD manages only 79, a 76.6% difference that highlights the Intel chip's integer throughput efficiency in this specific kernel. Data encryption favors Intel by 42.9%, with scores of 26,046 versus 14,865. Extended instruction workloads give Intel a 26.9% edge at 27,274 versus 19,924. Integer math is comparatively close, with Intel's 83,147 beating AMD's 64,733 by 22.1%. Data compression results show Intel at 332,508 against AMD's 261,749, a 21.3% lead. Random string sorting rounds out the list with Intel ahead by 22.9%, scoring 40,357 versus 31,110. The consistent pattern across all eleven tests is that the Intel mobile processor outperforms the AMD desktop processor in every category, with the largest gaps appearing in workloads that benefit from wide vector units and high core counts.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several key differences between the two processors. Core and thread counts differ: the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.30 GHz for AMD and 1.90 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 4.30 GHz for AMD and 4.80 GHz for Intel. Thermal design power differs significantly, with AMD at 65 W and Intel at just 25 W. The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 2540. Process nodes are 5 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel, with foundries TSMC and Intel respectively. Cache configurations differ across all levels, with Intel's per-core L1 and L2 capacities larger at 192 KB and 3 MB per core versus AMD's 64 KB and 1 MB per core, and L3 at 18 MB shared versus 16 MB shared. Memory support shows DDR5 for AMD and LPDDR5X for Intel, with memory bandwidth at 83.2 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory support exists on AMD but not Intel. PCIe connectivity differs: AMD offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics on AMD and Arc B390 on Intel. The AMD multiplier is unlocked, while Intel's is locked. Market segments are Desktop for AMD and Mobile for Intel. Release dates are September 2025 for AMD and January 2026 for Intel. The AMD part number is 100-000001900, while Intel's is SA4RAQ9ET.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel chip in multi-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 33,802 in the PassMark multithread test, which is 35.8% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 7400's score of 21,712.

Q: Does the AMD processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X support, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 83.2 GB/s with DDR5 support.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a TDP of 25 W, compared to the AMD Ryzen 5 7400's 65 W.

Q: Can the AMD processor be overclocked?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has a locked multiplier, so overclocking is only possible on the AMD part.

Q: Which chip wins in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 4,124 in the PassMark single-thread test, 21.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 7400's 3,248.