AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H occupy different corners of the processor market, one a desktop part built for AM5 systems, the other a mobile chip designed for laptops. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the Intel part winning every recorded head-to-head test. The database records 17 wins for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H and zero for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, but the margin varies dramatically across workloads. The Ryzen 5 8400F is not without merit, particularly in single-threaded tasks where the gap narrows, but the overall picture favors the Intel silicon in almost every measurable category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided results appear in floating-point and physics workloads. In PassMark floating point math, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 103615 against the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F's 46217, a 55.4% advantage. The physics test shows a similar pattern: 2880 for Intel versus 1332 for AMD, a 53.7% lead. These two tests highlight the Intel chip's superior execution resources, likely stemming from its higher core count and newer microarchitecture. The AMD part cannot close this gap, and the data shows no scenario where it pulls ahead in compute-heavy floating-point work.

Prime number finding is another area where Intel dominates. The Core Ultra 7 366H records 326 in the PassMark find prime numbers test, while the Ryzen 5 8400F manages only 89, a 72.7% deficit for AMD. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire head-to-head set. Integer math is closer, with Intel at 83695 and AMD at 74021, an 11.6% lead. Data encryption shows a 35.6% Intel advantage (25845 versus 16646), while extended instructions favor Intel by 17.6% (26901 versus 22175). Random string sorting gives Intel a 13.1% edge (39814 versus 34604), and data compression shows a 12% lead (327455 versus 288158).

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story across multiple versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 2870 against AMD's 2101, a 26.8% margin. The single-core R15 test shows Intel at 405 versus AMD's 296, also 26.9%. Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the 26.8% figure (11960 versus 8757), as does the R20 single-core result (1688 versus 1236). Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 28477 for Intel and 20851 for AMD, again 26.8%. The R23 single-core result is 4020 versus 2943, a 26.8% gap. These consistent deltas across all six Cinebench tests indicate that the performance difference scales almost uniformly with clock-for-clock efficiency and core count in rendering workloads.

PassMark multithread shows Intel at 33429 and AMD at 24389, a 27% lead. The single-thread test narrows considerably: 4043 for Intel versus 3685 for AMD, an 8.9% margin. This single-thread result is the smallest percentage difference in the entire benchmark set, suggesting that the AMD Zen 4 core is competitive on a per-thread basis, but the Intel part still holds the advantage. The overall average benchmark score confirms the hierarchy: the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263 across all recorded tests, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F averages 25005. The Intel chip sits in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the AMD part's 77th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in their design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also known as Panther Lake-H, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it does not use Hyper-Threading or any equivalent multithreading technique; each core handles exactly one thread.

This core count difference is significant. The Intel part has 10 more physical cores, which explains its dominance in multicore workloads like Cinebench R23 multicore, where it scores 28477 versus 20851. The AMD chip tries to compensate with 12 threads from 6 cores, but the sheer physical core advantage of Intel wins out. The transistor counts differ as well: AMD lists 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, while Intel does not provide transistor or die size data in the database. The process node difference, 4 nm for AMD versus 3 nm for Intel, likely contributes to the Intel part's ability to fit more cores into a mobile power envelope.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's per-core L1 cache is three times larger, and its L2 is 2.5 times larger. The shared L3 is only 2 MB larger on Intel, but the per-core cache advantages likely help in latency-sensitive workloads, which may explain the single-thread performance lead.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but with a higher bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. This 32 GB/s bandwidth advantage for Intel could benefit memory-intensive tasks. PCIe connectivity shows a notable difference: AMD provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The Gen 5 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though AMD has more total lanes.

Integrated graphics separate the two clearly. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics, making it suitable for systems without a discrete GPU. This is a critical distinction for mobile users, as the Intel chip can drive displays and handle basic graphics tasks on its own. The AMD part requires a separate graphics card, which is typical for a desktop-focused processor.

Other architectural factors include the socket and market segment. AMD uses Socket AM5, a desktop platform with an unlocked multiplier, meaning users can overclock. Intel uses BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package with a locked multiplier. The AMD part targets the desktop market, while Intel targets mobile. The production status is active for both, but the release dates differ: AMD launched on 2024-03-31, Intel on 2026-01-04. The Intel part is newer by almost two years, which may explain its architectural advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. Intel leads by 10 physical cores, while AMD's use of simultaneous multithreading gives it 12 threads from 6 cores.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where Intel scores 326 and AMD scores 89, giving Intel a 72.7% advantage. The smallest gap is in PassMark single-thread tests, where Intel leads by 8.9% (4043 versus 3685).

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports DDR5 only. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory, but Intel has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus AMD's 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A. This makes the Intel chip usable without a discrete GPU, while the AMD part requires one.

Q: How do the processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: Intel scores 28477 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while AMD scores 20851. This gives Intel a 26.8% lead. The same 26.8% margin appears across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multicore.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average score of 25005, placing it in the 77th percentile.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice based on workload. For mobile users who need a processor that can handle multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math without a discrete GPU, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the superior pick. It wins every recorded benchmark, delivers 26.8% higher Cinebench scores across the board, and offers integrated graphics for display output. Its 87th percentile ranking versus AMD's 77th confirms its overall standing in the database.

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F does offer some advantages from the recorded data. It has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking on AM5 motherboards, and its 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide more total connectivity than Intel's 12 Gen 5 lanes. The single-thread gap of 8.9% is modest, and the AMD part's lower core count means it draws less power in some scenarios, though the database does not record power consumption figures. For desktop builders who already own an AM5 board and a discrete GPU, the Ryzen 5 8400F remains a functional choice, but the benchmark results show it trailing the Intel part in every measurable test.

The launch MSRP for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F is $170. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has no listed launch MSRP in the database. The Intel part's higher average benchmark score of 41263 versus 25005 for AMD suggests that it delivers more performance per dollar, though pricing data for Intel is not available for comparison. The production status is active for both, so neither is discontinued.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H:

• Cores: AMD has 6, Intel has 16
• Threads: AMD has 12, Intel has 16
• Base clock: AMD runs at 4.20 GHz, Intel at 2.00 GHz
• Boost clock: AMD boosts to 4.70 GHz, Intel to 4.80 GHz
• TDP: AMD is rated at 65 watts, Intel at 25 watts
• Socket: AMD uses Socket AM5, Intel uses BGA 2540
• Architecture: AMD uses Zen 4 (Phoenix), Intel uses Panther Lake
• Process node: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm from Intel
• Transistors: AMD lists 25,000 million, Intel lists none
• Die size: AMD lists 178 mm², Intel lists none
• L1 cache: AMD has 64 KB per core, Intel has 192 KB per core
• L2 cache: AMD has 1 MB per core, Intel has 2.5 MB per core
• L3 cache: AMD has 16 MB shared, Intel has 18 MB shared
• Memory support: AMD supports DDR5 only, Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X
• Memory bandwidth: AMD has 83.2 GB/s, Intel has 115.2 GB/s
• PCIe: AMD has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel has Gen 5 with 12 lanes
• Integrated graphics: AMD has none, Intel has Intel Xe3 Graphics
• Market segment: AMD is desktop, Intel is mobile
• Release date: AMD launched 2024-03-31, Intel launched 2026-01-04
• Launch MSRP: AMD is $170, Intel has none
• Multiplier unlocked: AMD is unlocked, Intel is locked
• Part number: AMD is 100-000001591, Intel is SA4R9Q9EL