AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into clearly defined roles. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 takes five wins across the shared PassMark test suite, while the Intel Core 3 305 takes six. The distribution is not random; it follows the architectural character of each chip.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 dominates workloads that rely on parallel integer throughput and data manipulation. Its largest victories come in integer math, where it scores 81,370 against Intel's 32,295, a 152% advantage. Data compression also favors AMD heavily, with a score of 242,634 versus 146,857, a 65.2% gap. Random string sorting goes AMD's way too, 25,981 to 17,623, a 47.4% lead. Data encryption shows a 40.8% margin in AMD's favor, 15,520 to 11,019. Extended instructions round out the AMD wins with a 19.4% edge, 16,170 to 13,543.

The Intel Core 3 305 counters in the remaining categories, and it does so with decisive margins in several cases. Its biggest win is floating point math, where it scores 42,284 against AMD's 6,673, an 84.2% advantage. Find prime numbers goes to Intel by a wide margin, 115 to 43, a 62.6% gap. The multithread score favors Intel at 15,439 versus 12,237, a 20.7% lead. Physics simulation also goes Intel's way, 1,233 to 793, a 35.7% edge. Single-thread performance favors Intel at 3,977 versus 3,435, a 13.6% lead.

The pattern suggests AMD's strength lies in integer-heavy, multi-core parallel tasks, while Intel's efficiency cores handle floating point and single-thread workloads with greater effectiveness. The data implies a use-case split: AMD for compression, encryption, and sorting; Intel for floating point math, physics, and single-thread responsiveness.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different manufacturing philosophies. AMD uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. AMD's architecture is Zen 3+ with the Rembrandt-R codename, containing 8 cores and 16 threads. Intel's architecture is listed as Wildcat Lake, containing 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading.

The core count disparity is significant. AMD offers 8 physical cores and 16 logical threads, while Intel offers 6 physical cores and 6 logical threads. Despite this, Intel wins the multithread benchmark, suggesting its per-core efficiency and clock behavior compensate for fewer threads.

Cache configurations differ substantially. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is notable: AMD has 16 MB shared, Intel has 6 MB shared, a 10 MB gap that favors AMD in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also diverges. AMD supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but on a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. The bandwidth difference of 17.1 GB/s favors AMD and likely contributes to its compression and encryption wins.

PCIe lanes differ, with AMD offering Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while Intel offers Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon 680M, Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core. AMD supports ECC memory, Intel does not. AMD's TDP is 28 watts, Intel's is 15 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single delta in the head-to-head data is integer math. AMD scores 81,370 against Intel's 32,295, a 152% lead. This is the clearest statement of AMD's integer throughput advantage, driven by its 8 cores and 16 threads.

Floating point math reverses the trend completely. Intel scores 42,284 against AMD's 6,673, an 84.2% lead in Intel's favor. This is a dramatic swing, indicating Intel's FPU design or clock behavior is far more effective per core.

Find prime numbers shows Intel at 115 versus AMD at 43, a 62.6% gap. This workload often depends on integer division and branch prediction, but Intel's result here suggests a fundamental per-core efficiency edge in this specific test.

Data compression is a clear AMD win at 242,634 versus 146,857, a 65.2% margin. Data encryption follows with AMD at 15,520 versus 11,019, a 40.8% edge. Random string sorting also favors AMD, 25,981 to 17,623, a 47.4% lead.

Extended instructions shows a closer result. AMD scores 16,170, Intel scores 13,543, a 19.4% margin. This is AMD's narrowest win, suggesting the instruction extension capabilities are more balanced than other categories.

Multithread performance favors Intel, 15,439 to 12,237, a 20.7% gap. This is notable given AMD's thread advantage. Single-thread performance also favors Intel, 3,977 to 3,435, a 13.6% margin. Physics rounds out Intel's wins, 1,233 to 793, a 35.7% lead.

The data shows AMD wins five tests, Intel wins six. The aggregate picture is mixed, with each chip holding distinct computational territories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 boosts to 4.75 GHz. The Intel Core 3 305 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: Which processor wins the multithread benchmark?

A: The Intel Core 3 305 wins the PassMark multithread test, scoring 15,439 versus AMD's 12,237, a 20.7% margin.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 3 305 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a dual-channel bus. The Intel Core 3 305 has 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel bus.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates two different design goals. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is built for parallel integer workloads. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 16 MB L3 cache deliver decisive wins in data compression, encryption, integer math, and random string sorting. The 152% lead in integer math is the largest margin in the entire comparison.

The Intel Core 3 305 is built for per-core efficiency and floating point throughput. Its 6 cores and 6 threads outperform AMD's 8 cores and 16 threads in the multithread test, which is a surprising result given the core count disadvantage. The 84.2% lead in floating point math is the largest Intel margin, and the single-thread advantage of 13.6% indicates stronger per-core performance in scalar workloads.

For users running compression tools, encryption routines, or integer-heavy sorting tasks, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the better choice based on the recorded data. For users running physics simulations, floating point calculations, or single-threaded applications, the Intel Core 3 305 holds the advantage. The percentile ranking places AMD at the 85th percentile of all CPUs, while Intel sits at the 72nd percentile, but the head-to-head data shows Intel winning more individual tests.

The verdict is not a clean sweep for either side. The data supports a workload-dependent decision. AMD wins the categories that favor parallel integer throughput and memory bandwidth. Intel wins the categories that favor per-core floating point capability and single-thread speed.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded specifications:

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 160 | Intel Core 3 305 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 6 |

| Base clock | 2.70 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.75 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 28 watts | 15 watts |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 3+ | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | 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 support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

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

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

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

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $309 |

| Part number | 100-000000991(FP7r2) | SAE3L |