AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two mobile processors is nearly even, with the AMD Ryzen 7 160 taking 6 of the 11 head-to-head tests and the Intel Core 3 304 taking the remaining 5. The division is not random; it follows a clear pattern tied to workload type.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 dominates in data-heavy and throughput-oriented tasks. Its largest victory comes in integer math, where it scores 81,370 against Intel's 24,640, a 230.2% advantage. Data compression shows a 111.4% lead (242,634 vs. 114,775), and random string sorting is 90.2% ahead (25,981 vs. 13,659). Data encryption (15,520 vs. 8,501, +82.6%) and extended instructions (16,170 vs. 9,686, +66.9%) complete the AMD sweep of the data-processing suite. The multithread score also favors AMD, though by a narrower 5.3% margin (12,237 vs. 11,625).

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in the other workload cluster. Floating-point math is its standout: 29,722 vs. 6,673, a 77.5% advantage that flips the expected result given the core count disparity. Prime number finding goes to Intel by 36.8% (68 vs. 43), and physics simulation shows an 8.6% edge (868 vs. 793). Single-thread performance also belongs to Intel, with 3,614 vs. 3,435, a 5% lead.

The practical takeaway: the Ryzen 7 160 is the choice for compression, encryption, sorting, and general integer-heavy productivity. The Core 3 304 handles floating-point calculations, prime-number sieving, physics workloads, and lightly threaded tasks with better responsiveness. Users who work with scientific computing, simulation, or single-threaded applications will see the Intel part's strengths; those who process large datasets, archive files, or run database operations will prefer the AMD part's throughput.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and different process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is built on Zen 3+ architecture (codenamed Rembrandt-R) using a 6 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Wildcat Lake architecture on Intel's own 3 nm process. Both are mobile parts, but that is where the similarity ends.

AMD fields 8 cores and 16 threads, a configuration that explains its multithread advantage. Intel counters with 5 cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyperthreading; each core handles exactly one thread. The core count difference is substantial: 8 vs. 5 physical cores, and 16 vs. 5 logical threads. This thread disparity is the primary reason AMD wins the multithread benchmark despite Intel's higher single-thread score.

Cache layout differs significantly. AMD uses a per-core split: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB L3. Intel aggregates differently: 192 KB L1 total, 2.5 MB L2 total, and 6 MB shared L3. The AMD L3 pool is more than 2.5 times larger, which helps in workloads that reuse data across cores. Intel's smaller cache is partially offset by its higher clock speeds.

Clock behavior also diverges. The AMD part has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz, a 2.05 GHz range. Intel starts lower at 1.50 GHz base but boosts to 4.30 GHz, a 2.80 GHz range. The wider boost window suggests Intel can ramp aggressively when a single core is active, consistent with its single-thread benchmark lead.

Memory architecture is another differentiator. AMD supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but through a single-channel bus, capping bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s. AMD also supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity favors AMD as well: Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only) vs. Intel's Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 680M, Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core.

The power envelope favors Intel: 15 W TDP vs. AMD's 28 W TDP. The AMD part consumes nearly double the power budget, which contributes to its higher performance in multi-threaded tasks but also means more heat and shorter battery life in thin-and-light designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result in the entire comparison is integer math. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 81,370 against the Intel Core 3 304's 24,640, a 230.2% margin. No other test comes close to this gap. It reflects the combined effect of AMD's 8 cores, 16 threads, and larger cache hierarchy on a workload that scales nearly linearly with core count.

Data compression shows a similarly one-sided outcome, though less extreme. AMD's 242,634 vs. Intel's 114,775 represents a 111.4% lead. This test benefits from the same parallel scaling, and the AMD part's 16 MB shared L3 likely helps with the repeated data access patterns in compression algorithms.

Random string sorting goes to AMD by 90.2%: 25,981 vs. 13,659. This workload is memory-latency sensitive, and AMD's dual-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth provides a clear structural advantage over Intel's single-channel 59.7 GB/s configuration.

Data encryption favors AMD by 82.6% (15,520 vs. 8,501), and extended instructions by 66.9% (16,170 vs. 9,686). Both are throughput-oriented tests where more threads translate directly into higher scores.

The multithread test is the closest AMD win: 12,237 vs. 11,625, a 5.3% margin. Despite having 11 more logical threads, AMD only barely edges Intel here. This suggests the Intel cores are substantially more efficient per thread, likely due to the 3 nm process and higher boost clock.

Intel's wins reveal its strengths. Floating-point math is the largest Intel victory: 29,722 vs. 6,673, a 77.5% advantage. This is a striking reversal from integer performance. The Intel cores clearly have a much stronger floating-point unit or vector execution path, possibly from the Xe3 graphics architecture sharing resources with the CPU cores.

Prime number finding goes to Intel by 36.8% (68 vs. 43). This test is typically branch-prediction and single-thread dependent, and Intel's 4.30 GHz boost clock helps. Physics simulation favors Intel by 8.6% (868 vs. 793), which aligns with floating-point math being a physics engine's primary workload.

Single-thread performance belongs to Intel by 5%: 3,614 vs. 3,435. This is the most important result for everyday responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The Intel part's higher boost clock and newer process node overcome AMD's larger core count when only one core is active.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 160 | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 5 |

| Threads | 16 | 5 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.75 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Process Node | 6 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB total |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB per core | 2.5 MB total |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Support | Yes | No |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 680M | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-04-15 |

The release date gap is notable: the AMD part is roughly six months older. Both are listed as Active production parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 scores 3,614 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 5% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 160's 3,435.

Q: Why does the AMD Ryzen 7 160 win the multithread test by only 5.3% despite having 16 threads vs. 5?

A: The Intel part's higher per-core efficiency, driven by its 3 nm process and 4.30 GHz boost clock, narrows the gap. The AMD part still wins: 12,237 vs. 11,625.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 304 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD part has 76.8 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5. The Intel part has 59.7 GB/s over single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 16 MB shared L3. The Intel Core 3 304 has 6 MB shared L3.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD part has a 28 W TDP. The Intel part has a 15 W TDP, making it the lower-power option.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload profile. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the stronger choice for multi-threaded data processing: integer math, compression, encryption, sorting, and extended instruction workloads all show leads between 66.9% and 230.2%. Its 16 threads, 16 MB L3, and dual-channel memory provide the structural advantages that drive these results. The 28 W TDP is the cost of that throughput.

The Intel Core 3 304 is the choice for floating-point-heavy and lightly threaded tasks. Its 77.5% lead in floating-point math is the single largest Intel victory, and physics simulation follows the same pattern. Single-thread performance is 5% higher, which matters for everyday application responsiveness. The 15 W TDP makes it the efficiency pick, and its 3 nm process gives it a node advantage.

The multithread result, where AMD wins by only 5.3% despite a 3.2x thread advantage, is the most telling overall indicator. It shows that Intel's 3 nm cores are substantially more capable per thread, but AMD's raw core count still carries the day in parallel workloads. For a system that primarily runs compression, encryption, database, or sorting tasks, the Ryzen 7 160 is the data-backed winner. For floating-point computation, physics, or single-threaded applications, the Core 3 304 delivers better measured performance with lower power draw. The launch MSRP for the Intel part is $309; the AMD part has no listed launch MSRP in the database.