AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 225 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 and Intel Core Ultra 5 225 represent two very different approaches to modern x86 computing, and their benchmark results reflect a clear divergence in design philosophy. The data shows a significant overall performance advantage for the Intel part, which claims victory in 10 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD processor manages a single, albeit substantial, win. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close—37,117 for the AMD and 36,938 for the Intel—but the distribution of performance across different workloads tells a far more interesting story than the aggregate suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire comparison is in floating-point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 delivers a score of 92,038 compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 160’s 6,673. This represents a massive 92.7% advantage for Intel, indicating a dramatic difference in raw computational throughput for workloads that rely heavily on floating-point operations. Similarly, the find prime numbers test shows Intel’s dominance, with a score of 358 versus AMD’s 43, an 88% gap that points to superior integer and algorithmic efficiency in that specific test.

In multithreaded workloads, the Intel part is decisively ahead. The passmark_multithread score of 30,459 for the Intel chip is 59.8% higher than the AMD’s 12,237. This is a substantial lead, and it is consistent with the Intel’s performance in physics calculations, where it scores 2,342 against the AMD’s 793, a 66.1% advantage. Even in data compression, a task often associated with strong memory and cache performance, the Intel part wins with a score of 302,811 versus 242,634, a 19.9% margin. The data encryption test yields a similar pattern, with Intel taking a 30.4% lead (22,285 vs. 15,520).

The Intel processor’s advantage extends to single-threaded performance, a critical metric for many everyday applications. In the passmark_single_thread test, Intel scores 4,412, which is 22.1% higher than AMD’s 3,435. This lead is also reflected in the extended instructions test, where Intel’s 27,162 score is 40.5% above AMD’s 16,170, and in random string sorting, where Intel’s 36,590 beats AMD’s 25,981 by 29%.

The single area where AMD emerges victorious is in integer math. The Ryzen 7 160 scores 81,370, which is 24.5% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 225’s 65,345. This is a significant win, suggesting that the AMD architecture has particular strengths in certain types of integer-heavy computational tasks. It is the only benchmark where the AMD part leads, but the magnitude of the victory is noteworthy, showing that the Ryzen 7 160 is not without its own specific competencies.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is the clear winner for virtually all general-purpose and high-throughput computing tasks. Its dominance in multithreaded tests, floating-point math, and physics calculations indicates that it is the superior choice for content creation, scientific computing, and any workload that can leverage multiple cores effectively. The 59.8% lead in passmark_multithread and the 92.7% lead in floating-point math are not marginal differences; they represent a fundamental performance tier gap. For users who run video encoding, 3D rendering, or complex simulations, the Intel part’s data is compelling.

The Intel chip’s 22.1% lead in single-threaded performance also makes it the better option for tasks that rely on high clock speeds and efficient instruction processing, such as gaming or legacy software that is not well-optimized for multi-core scaling. Its superior scores in data compression and encryption also suggest it would be a strong choice for server-side tasks or database work that involves significant data manipulation.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160’s sole win in integer math is a specific, but not insignificant, advantage. This suggests that in workloads that are heavily dependent on integer operations—which includes many database indexing operations, certain types of cryptography, and some financial calculations—the AMD part could offer a tangible performance benefit. The 24.5% lead is substantial, and for a user with a workload that is entirely integer-bound, the Ryzen 7 160 could be the more suitable processor despite its overall performance deficit. However, for a balanced mix of tasks, the data overwhelmingly favors the Intel Core Ultra 5 225.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparity between these two processors is rooted in fundamentally different architectural designs. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is built on the Zen 3+ architecture, codenamed Rembrandt-R, and fabricated on a 6 nm process by TSMC. It is a mobile-class processor with a 28 W TDP, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 16 MB of L3 cache. The processor supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s and includes a Radeon 680M integrated GPU.

In contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is based on the Arrow Lake architecture, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2. It is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP, fabricated on a more advanced 3 nm process, also by TSMC. It features 10 cores but only 10 threads, indicating that it does not use simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Its cache configuration is significantly different, with 192 KB of L1 per core and a much larger 3 MB of L2 per core, alongside a shared 20 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part supports dual-channel DDR5 memory with a higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. It also has a more advanced PCIe interface, supporting Gen 5 with 20 lanes, compared to the AMD’s Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Intel chip’s integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 16 execution units, and it is built with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, compared to the AMD’s 210 mm² die.

The lack of SMT on the Intel part is a key architectural divergence. While the AMD processor has 16 threads from 8 cores, the Intel processor has 10 threads from 10 physical cores. Despite having fewer threads, the Intel part’s higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs. 2.70 GHz), higher boost clock (4.90 GHz vs. 4.75 GHz), and significantly larger L2 cache per core contribute to its superior performance in most benchmarks. The larger L2 cache likely helps to feed the cores more efficiently, reducing the need to access the slower L3 cache or main memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The average scores are very close, with the AMD Ryzen 7 160 at 37,117 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 at 36,938. The difference is minimal, and both sit at the 85th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 faster in every benchmark?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 wins in the passmark_integer_math test with a score of 81,370, which is 24.5% higher than the Intel’s score of 65,345. The Intel part wins the other 10 head-to-head comparisons.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 225 scores 4,412 in the passmark_single_thread test, which is 22.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 160’s score of 3,435.

Q: What is the most significant performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the passmark_floating_point_math test, where the Intel part scores 92,038 and the AMD part scores 6,673. This gives Intel a 92.7% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. However, the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has a higher maximum memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s compared to the AMD’s 76.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is built on a 6 nm process, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is built on a more advanced 3 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Specification Differences

• Cores: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 cores.
• Threads: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 16 threads; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 10 threads.
• Base Clock: AMD Ryzen 7 160 runs at 2.70 GHz; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 runs at 3.30 GHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD Ryzen 7 160 boosts to 4.75 GHz; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 boosts to 4.90 GHz.
• TDP: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a 28 W TDP; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has a 65 W TDP.
• Socket: AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses AMD Socket FP7; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 uses Intel Socket 1851.
• Process Node: AMD Ryzen 7 160 is on 6 nm; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is on 3 nm.
• Transistors: Transistor count is not specified for AMD; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 17,800 million.
• Die Size: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a 210 mm² die; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has a 243 mm² die.
• L1 Cache: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 64 KB per core; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 192 KB per core.
• L2 Cache: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 512 KB per core; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 3 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 16 MB shared; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 20 MB shared.
• Memory Bandwidth: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 76.8 GB/s; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has 102.4 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: Supported by AMD Ryzen 7 160; not supported by Intel Core Ultra 5 225.
• PCIe: AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports Gen 4, 20 Lanes; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 supports Gen 5, 20 Lanes.
• Integrated Graphics: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has Radeon 680M; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU.
• Market Segment: AMD Ryzen 7 160 is a Mobile processor; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 is a Desktop processor.
• Release Date: AMD Ryzen 7 160 was released on 2025-09-30; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 was released on 2025-01-06.
• Launch MSRP: AMD Ryzen 7 160 has no specified launch MSRP; Intel Core Ultra 5 225 has a launch MSRP of $246.