AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records an average benchmark score of 40518, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 37117 on average, which places it in the 85th percentile. The Intel part sits 3401 points higher on average.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark multithread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 32956 in PassMark multithread, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 12237. This gives Intel a 62.9% advantage in that test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-12900T (37112), the Intel Core i7-13700 (37135), and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 (37093). The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is within 0.2% of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557), the Intel Core 5 223PE (40585), the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (40431), and the Intel Xeon 6507P (40426).

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 4005 in PassMark single-thread, versus 3435 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160. That is a 14.2% difference in favor of Intel.

Q: Does the AMD processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H does not.

Q: What is the difference in floating-point math performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records 105681 in PassMark floating-point math, versus 6673 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160. This is the largest percentage gap between the two, with Intel leading by 93.7%.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz. The die size is 210 mm². Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The integrated graphics are Radeon 680M. The socket is AMD Socket FP7.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H belongs to the Panther Lake family, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. It has 16 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Cache amounts are larger: 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Integrated graphics are Arc B390. The socket is Intel BGA 2540.

The process node difference is substantial: 6 nm versus 3 nm. The Intel part also doubles the core count from 8 to 16, although thread count remains 16 on both because the Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part has 16 threads from 8 cores, while the Intel part has 16 threads from 16 cores. The Intel part has a higher boost clock by 0.25 GHz, while the AMD part has a higher base clock by 0.70 GHz. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 per core versus 64 KB, and 2.5 MB of L2 per core versus 512 KB. L3 is 18 MB versus 16 MB. Memory bandwidth is doubled on the Intel part: 153.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. The PCIe interface also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The AMD part supports ECC, the Intel part does not. TDP ratings are close, with the AMD at 28 and the Intel at 25.

The release dates differ by about three months: the AMD part launched on 2025-09-30, the Intel part on 2026-01-04. Both are currently marked as Active in production. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both are multiplier-unlocked false.

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H across all recorded tests. The Intel part wins 11 out of 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. For workloads that stress multithreading, physics simulation, or floating-point math, the Intel part is clearly the stronger choice. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 does have advantages in specific areas: it supports ECC memory, has a higher base clock, and uses a different PCIe configuration with more lanes. However, the performance gap in the recorded benchmarks is large enough that the Intel part dominates the comparison.

The AMD part might be preferable for systems requiring ECC memory support or for users who need the higher base clock for lightly threaded workloads that do not scale with additional cores. The Intel part, with 16 cores and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, delivers the higher single-thread score and the far higher multithread score. The average benchmark score difference of 3401 points confirms the Intel part's overall lead. The percentile rankings, 87 versus 85, also place the Intel part slightly higher in the global distribution.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, the Intel part is the data-backed choice. For users who need ECC memory or a lower-power footprint with a smaller process node advantage, the AMD part has a niche. But the recorded benchmark results show no test where the AMD part leads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 160 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.75 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 28 | 25 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 3+ | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Rembrandt-R | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 210 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 680M | Arc B390 |

| Release Date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-01-04 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The smallest margin is in PassMark integer math, where Intel scores 88083 versus 81370 for AMD, a 7.6% difference. The largest margin is in floating-point math, where Intel scores 105681 versus 6673, a 93.7% gap. That floating-point result is striking: the Intel part delivers more than 15 times the AMD score in that test.

In PassMark multithread, the Intel part scores 32956 versus 12237, a 62.9% lead. In PassMark physics, Intel scores 2857 versus 793, a 72.2% lead. In PassMark find prime numbers, Intel scores 321 versus 43, an 86.6% lead. In PassMark data encryption, Intel scores 25228 versus 15520, a 38.5% lead. In PassMark extended instructions, Intel scores 25669 versus 16170, a 37% lead. In PassMark random string sorting, Intel scores 38093 versus 25981, a 31.8% lead. In PassMark data compression, Intel scores 312927 versus 242634, a 22.5% lead. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4005 versus 3435, a 14.2% lead.

The single-thread result shows the Intel core is faster per thread, not just faster with more cores. The 14.2% single-thread advantage, combined with the 7.6% integer math advantage and the 93.7% floating-point advantage, indicates the Intel core has a stronger execution pipeline for both scalar and vector workloads. The AMD part does not lead in any of the 11 head-to-head tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates in every benchmark category recorded. The largest wins are in floating-point math (93.7% ahead), prime number finding (86.6% ahead), and physics (72.2% ahead). These results point to workloads involving scientific computation, simulation, or any math-heavy processing. The multithread score of 32956 versus 12237 suggests the Intel part is the better choice for heavily parallel tasks such as rendering, compiling, or data processing.

The Intel part also leads in memory-related workloads. Data compression shows a 22.5% lead, and random string sorting shows a 31.8% lead. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, double that of the AMD part, likely contributes to these results. The LPDDR5X memory support and the larger L1 and L2 caches per core give the Intel part an advantage in data-intensive operations.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 does have certain qualitative advantages. It supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. It has a higher base clock of 2.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, which could help in situations where sustained low-core-count operation is needed. Its PCIe Gen 4 interface with 20 lanes provides more PCIe lanes than the Intel part's Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The AMD part also has a larger die size (210 mm²) and uses a 6 nm process, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process.

For users who need ECC memory, the AMD part is the only option between the two. For users who need more PCIe lanes, the AMD part offers 20 lanes versus 4. For users who run workloads that are heavily dependent on single-thread performance, the Intel part leads by 14.2%. For all other recorded workloads, the Intel part leads by margins ranging from 7.6% to 93.7%. The data clearly shows the Intel part as the higher-performing processor in this comparison.