AMD Ryzen 5 7400 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H occupy different segments of the processor market, and the benchmark data confirms a clear performance hierarchy between them. The Ryzen 5 7400 is a desktop part built on AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, while the Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor based on Intel’s Panther Lake design. Across the eleven shared PassMark tests, the Intel part wins every single one, with the AMD processor trailing by margins ranging from 16.4% to 75.4%. The average benchmark scores place the Ryzen 5 7400 at 42,055 and the Core Ultra X7 368H at 40,518, yet the head-to-head results show that the Intel part’s architectural advantages are decisive in nearly every workload category.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a one-sided picture: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 does not record a single victory in the shared test suite, which includes data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multithreaded performance, physics simulation, random string sorting, and single-threaded tasks.

The Intel part’s largest margins come in workloads that scale with raw compute throughput and parallel execution. In the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 321 against the Ryzen 5 7400’s 79, a 75.4% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and core count, and the Intel processor’s 16 cores versus the AMD part’s 6 cores explains the massive gap. Similarly, in floating-point math, the Intel chip delivers 105,681 points compared to 40,784 for the AMD part, a 61.4% lead. Physics simulation shows a 59.7% difference, with Intel at 2,857 and AMD at 1,150.

The Intel part also leads in encryption workloads, scoring 25,228 against 14,865, a 41.1% margin. This suggests the Core Ultra X7 368H has stronger cryptographic instruction throughput. In multithreaded performance, the Intel chip scores 32,956 versus 21,712, a 34.1% advantage, which reflects its higher core count and thread count balance. Even in single-threaded tests, where AMD’s Zen 4 architecture is typically competitive, the Intel part wins by 18.9%, scoring 4,005 against the Ryzen’s 3,248.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has no segment where it outperforms the Intel part in the recorded data. Its closest relative performance comes in data compression, where it trails by 16.4% (261,749 versus 312,927), and random string sorting, where it is 18.3% behind (31,110 versus 38,093). These are the only two tests where the margin is below 20%. Even in these cases, the Intel processor maintains a comfortable lead, indicating that the Core Ultra X7 368H is consistently faster across all measured categories.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, part of the 7000 series. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC and contains 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the codename Panther Lake, part of the Core Ultra Series 3. It is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The Intel part has no listed transistor count or die size in the database.

Core and thread configurations differ sharply. The AMD processor has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel processor has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Intel part has no simultaneous multithreading, yet its raw core count more than compensates. The Ryzen 5 7400 operates at a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Core Ultra X7 368H has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part’s 25 W TDP is significantly lower than the AMD part’s 65 W TDP, reflecting its mobile design intent.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor 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, combined with a larger L3 pool, contribute to its higher single-threaded and latency-sensitive performance.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part uses DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and a measured bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel part uses LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel access and a measured bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, nearly double the AMD part’s bandwidth, but it does not support ECC. PCIe connectivity also varies: the AMD processor offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the Intel processor offers Gen 5 with only 4 lanes, reflecting the mobile platform’s reduced expansion capability.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390. The AMD part is a desktop processor with an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Intel part is a mobile processor with a locked multiplier. The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H leading in every recorded benchmark. The largest single margin is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where Intel scores 321 against AMD’s 79, a 75.4% advantage. This test is a pure integer workload that scales with core count, and the Intel part’s 16 cores provide a decisive edge over the AMD part’s 6 cores.

Floating-point math shows the second-largest margin. The Intel part scores 105,681 versus 40,784, a 61.4% lead. Physics simulation follows at 59.7%, with Intel scoring 2,857 and AMD scoring 1,150. These three tests are all highly parallel and benefit from the Intel part’s higher core count.

Encryption workloads show a 41.1% margin. The Intel part scores 25,228, while the AMD part scores 14,865. This indicates that the Intel processor’s dedicated encryption instructions are significantly faster in the recorded data. Multithreaded performance shows a 34.1% margin, with Intel at 32,956 and AMD at 21,712.

Integer math shows a 26.5% margin, with Intel at 88,083 and AMD at 64,733. Extended instructions show a 22.4% margin, with Intel at 25,669 and AMD at 19,924. Single-threaded performance shows an 18.9% margin, with Intel at 4,005 and AMD at 3,248. Random string sorting shows an 18.3% margin, with Intel at 38,093 and AMD at 31,110. The smallest margin is in data compression, where Intel leads by 16.4%, scoring 312,927 against AMD’s 261,749.

The consistency of the Intel lead is notable. Even in the tests where the AMD part is closest, it still trails by more than 16%. There is no single workload category where the Ryzen 5 7400 approaches parity. The data shows a processor that is slower across the board, though the margins vary substantially depending on the workload’s sensitivity to core count versus clock speed.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The AMD part has a TDP of 65 W, while the Intel part has a TDP of 25 W.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD part is built on Zen 4 with the codename Raphael, while the Intel part is built on Panther Lake with the codename Panther Lake. The AMD part uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The AMD part has 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, while the Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ: the AMD part has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support differs: the AMD part uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel access and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity differs: the AMD part offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part includes Arc B390. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. The AMD part is a desktop processor, while the Intel part is a mobile processor. The AMD part was released on 2025-09-15, while the Intel part was released on 2026-01-04. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Intel part has a 0.70 GHz higher boost clock.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7400 has 83.2 GB/s. The Intel part’s bandwidth is 70.4 GB/s higher.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the market segments for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7400 is a desktop processor using AMD Socket AM5. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is a mobile processor using Intel BGA 2540.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in the passmark_single_thread test with a score of 4,005 against the AMD Ryzen 5 7400’s 3,248, an 18.9% advantage.