AMD Ryzen 7 170 vs AMD Ryzen 7 260 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 and AMD Ryzen 7 170 are both 8-core, 16-thread mobile processors, yet benchmark results place them in distinctly different performance tiers. The data shows a decisive and consistent victory for the Ryzen 7 260 across every single measured workload, with the Ryzen 7 170 failing to secure a single win in the head-to-head comparison. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 43717 for the 260 and 43689 for the 170 — but this aggregate figure masks the substantial per-test deltas that define their real-world separation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the sheer breadth of the Ryzen 7 260's advantage. In the PassMark suite, the 260 wins all 11 head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from a modest 19.4% to a commanding 57.1%. The largest gap appears in the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test, where the 260 scores 77 against the 170's 49, a 57.1% improvement. This workload, which stresses integer throughput and core efficiency, highlights the architectural leap between the two chips.

The `passmark_random_string_sorting` test shows a similarly large divide, with the 260 scoring 42383 versus 27804 for the 170, a 52.4% delta. This suggests the 260 handles memory-bound, pointer-chasing operations far more effectively. Extended instruction performance is another major differentiator: the 260 posts 26544 against 18107, a 46.6% lead, indicating superior support for modern SIMD and cryptography workloads. The 260 also wins `passmark_multithread` by 35.3% (28078 vs 20760) and `passmark_physics` by 36.9% (1218 vs 890), both of which reflect strong scaling across all 16 threads.

Even in single-threaded performance, where the gap is smallest, the 260 still leads by 19.4% (3736 vs 3128). This consistency is notable — there is no test where the 170 closes the gap to single digits. The `passmark_data_compression` test shows a 32.2% delta (351517 vs 265920), while `passmark_floating_point_math` matches that exact 32.2% margin (59462 vs 44979). Integer math, a fundamental CPU workload, sees a 21.3% advantage for the 260 (96737 vs 79738). Data encryption also favors the newer chip by 26.1% (20267 vs 16078). The overall picture is unambiguous: the Ryzen 7 260 outpaces the Ryzen 7 170 in every category, with the average delta across all tests hovering near 35%.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap traces directly to architectural and manufacturing disparities. The Ryzen 7 260 is built on the Zen 4 architecture using TSMC's 4 nm process node, with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. In contrast, the Ryzen 7 170 uses the older Zen 3+ architecture on a 6 nm node, with a larger die of 210 mm² and no transistor count listed in the data. The smaller process node allows the 260 to achieve higher clock speeds while maintaining efficiency: its base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz, versus 3.20 GHz base and 4.75 GHz boost for the 170. This 0.60 GHz base-clock and 0.35 GHz boost-clock advantage directly contributes to the single-threaded and multi-threaded wins.

Cache configurations also differ. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 16 MB of shared L3 cache, but the L2 cache per core is doubled on the 260: 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core on the 170. This increased L2 capacity likely aids the 260 in data-compression and integer-math workloads where working sets exceed the smaller cache. The memory subsystem shows a similar pattern: the 260 supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the 170 also supports dual-channel DDR5 but at a lower 76.8 GB/s. The 12.8 GB/s bandwidth advantage for the 260 helps explain its superior random-string-sorting and floating-point results.

The integrated graphics differ as well, with the 260 featuring a Radeon 780M and the 170 a Radeon 680M. Both use Socket FP8 (260) and FP7 (170) respectively, and both support PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. ECC memory support is present on the 170 but absent on the 260. The 260 is rated at a 45W TDP, while the 170 is more power-efficient at 35W. Notably, the 260 was released earlier (2025-01-05) than the 170 (2025-09-30), indicating the 170 is a later, lower-power variant of an older architecture. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the superior processor in every measured dimension. With 11 wins and 0 losses in head-to-head benchmarks, it delivers between 19.4% and 57.1% higher scores across all PassMark tests. The architecture differences — Zen 4 on 4 nm versus Zen 3+ on 6 nm, higher clocks, double the L2 cache, and greater memory bandwidth — provide a comprehensive explanation for this dominance. The 260's 45W TDP is a trade-off for this performance, drawing 10W more than the 170's 35W, but the benchmark results justify the additional power for users who prioritize speed.

The Ryzen 7 170 is not without merit. Its 35W TDP makes it a more energy-efficient choice for thermally constrained laptops, and its ECC memory support is a feature absent from the 260. The 170 also holds a higher percentile ranking (88th) matching the 260, and its average benchmark score (43689) is within 0.1% of the 260's (43717), per the nearestRivals data. However, this average is misleading — the per-test deltas are consistently large, and the 170 never wins a single workload. For any user who values raw performance in compression, encryption, math, or multi-threaded tasks, the 260 is the clear choice. The 170 only makes sense for workloads where ECC memory is mandatory or where the 35W power envelope is a hard requirement.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specification fields. The 260 uses a 4 nm process node versus the 170's 6 nm, resulting in a smaller die (178 mm² vs 210 mm²) and a listed transistor count of 25,000 million (the 170 has no listed count). Clock speeds differ significantly: the 260 has a 3.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost, while the 170 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 4.75 GHz boost. The L2 cache per core is 1 MB on the 260 versus 512 KB on the 170, though both share 16 MB of L3 and 64 KB of L1 per core. Memory bandwidth is higher on the 260 at 89.6 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s on the 170, despite both using dual-channel DDR5.

Socket compatibility differs: the 260 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the 170 uses AMD Socket FP7. The integrated GPU is a Radeon 780M on the 260 and a Radeon 680M on the 170. TDP is 45W for the 260 and 35W for the 170. ECC memory support is present on the 170 but not the 260. Release dates are 2025-01-05 for the 260 and 2025-09-30 for the 170. The 260's part number is 100-000001724, while the 170's is 100-000000989. Both are mobile-market segments, active production, and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen 7 260 in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 260 scores 28078 in the PassMark multithread test versus 20760 for the 170, a 35.3% improvement.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Ryzen 7 170 reaches only 4.75 GHz.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 170 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the 170 lists ECC memory as true, whereas the 260 does not support ECC.

Q: What is the difference in single-threaded performance?

A: The 260 scores 3736 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 19.4% higher than the 170's 3128.

Q: Which chip has a larger L2 cache per core?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has 1 MB of L2 per core, twice the 512 KB found on the Ryzen 7 170.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: No, the 260 uses Zen 4 (Hawk Point), while the 170 uses Zen 3+ (Rembrandt-R), which explains the performance differences.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 260 wins in essentially every use case that depends on CPU throughput. For content creation, the 32.2% lead in data compression and 32.2% lead in floating-point math make it ideal for video encoding and 3D rendering. The 46.6% advantage in extended instructions benefits scientific computing and cryptography. The 57.1% lead in prime-number finding indicates strong integer performance for financial modeling or simulation. The 35.3% multi-thread win and 36.9% physics win make it the better choice for heavy multitasking and physics-based gaming workloads. The 21.3% integer math advantage covers general productivity. For any user running PassMark-style workloads, the 260 is the default pick.

The Ryzen 7 170 has a narrow niche. Its 35W TDP is 10W lower than the 260's, making it preferable for ultra-thin laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. The ECC memory support is a feature for workstations requiring error-correcting RAM, a capability the 260 lacks. The 170's lower clock speeds and smaller cache mean it will consume less power under sustained load, potentially extending battery life in mobile use. However, the benchmark data shows no workload where the 170 outperforms the 260 — its wins are entirely in the domains of power efficiency and ECC functionality, not raw performance. Users who need those specific attributes should choose the 170; everyone else should select the 260 based on its dominant benchmark scores.