AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 are both 28-watt mobile processors on the AMD Socket FP8 platform, but they target different performance strata within that envelope. The Ryzen 7 250 is an 8-core Zen 4 part, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is a 12-core Zen 5 part. Benchmark data shows the HX 370 dominates every measured workload, with the 250 trailing by margins ranging from 7.4% in single-threaded tests to over 42% in prime-number searches. Both chips land at the 86th percentile of all CPUs, yet the HX 370 does so with a significantly higher absolute average score.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 in multi-core rendering?

A: The HX 370 scores 21,761 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 32.6% ahead of the Ryzen 7 250’s 14,676. The advantage is similar in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the HX 370’s 3,409.5 beats the 250’s 2,302 by 32.5%.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 250 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. Across the 15 head-to-head benchmark results, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 wins all 15. The closest margin is in PassMark single-thread, where the HX 370 leads by 7.4% (3,973 vs. 3,678).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Both use a dual-channel memory bus and support DDR5 memory.

Q: Are these processors on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. The Ryzen 7 250 uses the Zen 4 architecture, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 uses Zen 5.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 features the Radeon 780M, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 features the Radeon 890M. The benchmark data does not include graphics-specific tests.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have an identical boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The base clocks differ, with the Ryzen 7 250 at 3.30 GHz and the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 at 2.00 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct architectural generations despite sharing a socket and TDP. The Ryzen 7 250 is built on the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, whereas the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 uses Zen 5 under the Strix Point codename. This generational leap explains several structural differences. The Ryzen 7 250 integrates 8 cores and 16 threads, while the HX 370 scales up to 12 cores and 24 threads. The die sizes reflect this: the Hawk Point chip measures 178 mm², while Strix Point is larger at 233 mm². The data lists 25,000 million transistors for the Ryzen 7 250 but does not provide a transistor count for the HX 370.

Cache configurations also diverge. The Ryzen 7 250 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The HX 370 increases L1 to 80 KB per core, keeps L2 at 1 MB per core, and retains 16 MB of L3. Both share the same 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and dual-channel bus, but the HX 370 adds LPDDR5X support alongside DDR5, while the 250 only lists DDR5. PCIe lanes differ as well: the Ryzen 7 250 provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU-only lanes, while the HX 370 offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with the 250 carrying the Radeon 780M and the HX 370 the Radeon 890M. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is the clear choice. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration delivers a 32.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and a 28.6% advantage in PassMark multithread. The HX 370 also wins every single-threaded test, with a 15% edge in Cinebench R23 single-core and a 7.4% lead in PassMark single-thread. There is no workload category in the data where the Ryzen 7 250 matches or exceeds the HX 370.

The Ryzen 7 250, however, is not without merit. It matches the HX 370’s 5.10 GHz boost clock and shares the same 28 W TDP and FP8 socket. It also offers more PCIe lanes (20 vs. 16) and a smaller die size. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or where the extra cores of the HX 370 are underutilized, the 250’s higher base clock of 3.30 GHz could provide a more responsive baseline. But the benchmark evidence is unambiguous: the HX 370 is the superior performer in every measured test. Users who need the absolute best mobile CPU performance from this data should select the HX 370; those constrained by platform compatibility or seeking a simpler 8-core part may find the 250 adequate.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Strix Point |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 233 mm² |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 64 KB | 80 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 1 MB | 1 MB |

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| PCIe Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Radeon 890M |

| Part Number | 100-000001722 | 100-000000994 |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-06-30 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 370’s dominance is consistent across every benchmark category. The largest single margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the HX 370 scores 126 versus the 250’s 73, a 42.1% advantage. PassMark physics also shows a wide gap, with the HX 370 at 1,881 against 1,147, representing a 39% lead. These results point to substantial advantages in both integer-heavy and floating-point workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the HX 370 posts 21,761 compared to 14,676 for the 250, a 32.6% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a nearly identical 32.5% margin (3,409.5 vs. 2,302). PassMark data compression follows the same pattern: the HX 370 scores 445,719 versus 300,708, a 32.5% lead. Extended instructions also favor the HX 370 significantly, with a 31.7% advantage (31,653 vs. 21,613). Floating-point math sees the HX 370 ahead by 30.7%, scoring 76,892 against 53,285.

The margins narrow in single-threaded and lighter workloads, but the HX 370 still wins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 15% lead (2,018 vs. 1,715), while Cinebench R15 single-core is closer at 12.2% (306.5 vs. 269). PassMark single-thread is the tightest race, with the HX 370 at 3,973 and the 250 at 3,678, a 7.4% difference. PassMark integer math shows a 25.5% gap (122,933 vs. 91,565), and random string sorting is 26.4% faster on the HX 370 (48,723 vs. 35,861). Data encryption also favors the HX 370 by 20.6% (22,252 vs. 17,661). The HX 370’s 12-core design provides a clear throughput advantage in every test, while its Zen 5 architecture also delivers superior single-thread performance despite the 250’s higher base clock.