AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive overall picture: the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 14 of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 takes a single victory. The magnitude of Intel's advantage varies widely by workload, from narrow single-digit margins to commanding gaps exceeding 75 percent.

The most substantial difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Intel part scores 28,221 against AMD's 14,676. That represents a 48 percent deficit for the Ryzen 7 250, indicating a fundamental throughput gap in heavily threaded rendering workloads. The single-core result in the same test is even more lopsided: Intel records 3,984 versus AMD's 1,715, a 57 percent lead. This suggests the Intel architecture holds a significant per-thread performance advantage, not merely an edge from additional cores.

Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H posts 2,844 in multi-core versus 2,302 for the AMD part, a 19.1 percent margin. In single-core, Intel's 401 score beats AMD's 269 by 32.9 percent. These older benchmark versions show smaller relative gaps than R23, but the direction is consistent.

PassMark's floating-point math test delivers another large separation. Intel scores 105,681 against AMD's 53,285, a 49.6 percent advantage. The physics test shows a 59.9 percent gap, with Intel at 2,857 and AMD at 1,147. Prime number finding is the most extreme case: Intel's 321 score is 77.3 percent higher than AMD's 73, a margin that dwarfs the other tests.

Data encryption also favors Intel substantially, with 25,228 versus 17,661, a 30 percent lead. Extended instructions show a 15.8 percent gap (25,669 against 21,613), while multithread performance lands at 32,956 versus 25,089, a 23.9 percent difference. The smaller margins appear in data compression (312,927 versus 300,708, a 3.9 percent gap) and random string sorting (38,093 versus 35,861, a 5.9 percent gap). Single-thread PassMark scores put Intel at 4,005 against AMD's 3,678, an 8.2 percent lead.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 claims its only win in PassMark integer math, scoring 91,565 against Intel's 88,083. That 4 percent margin is modest, but it does demonstrate that the AMD design retains an advantage in at least one integer-heavy workload.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates across rendering, physics simulation, encryption, and most mathematical workloads. Its Cinebench results, both R15 and R23, single-core and multi-core, point to a processor suited for content creation tasks that rely on sustained CPU throughput. The floating-point math and physics scores reinforce this profile: simulations, scientific computing, and 3D rendering would all favor the Intel part. The prime number test, which often reflects branch prediction and integer efficiency in specific algorithmic patterns, shows an enormous Intel lead, indicating particularly strong execution in that workload class.

The data compression and random string sorting tests, where Intel's edge shrinks to under 6 percent, represent memory-bound or latency-sensitive tasks where the two processors are closer in capability. Encryption also shows a sizeable Intel advantage, though not as extreme as the rendering gaps.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250's single win in integer math suggests it retains an edge in workloads that depend on pure integer arithmetic throughput, such as certain database operations, financial calculations, or general productivity tasks. The 4 percent margin is not large, but it is a measurable distinction in the recorded data. For users whose primary workloads are integer-heavy and not reliant on floating-point or rendering performance, the AMD part would not be at a disadvantage in that specific area.

Overall, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the stronger processor in nearly every measured category. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 is competitive in a narrow band of integer workloads, but the benchmark results indicate that the Intel part delivers higher performance across the broad majority of tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing and design approaches. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses a Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the Hawk Point codename. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H employs Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process built by Intel itself. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 3 nm, partly explains the Intel part's ability to achieve higher performance per clock in the recorded benchmarks.

Core counts differ significantly. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel processor has double the physical cores but the same thread count, indicating it does not use simultaneous multithreading. This core count disparity is likely the primary driver of the large multi-core benchmark gaps.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H lists a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. Despite the lower base frequency, the Intel part achieves higher single-thread scores, suggesting superior per-clock efficiency from the newer architecture.

Cache layouts are distinct. The AMD processor provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part offers 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core cache hierarchy on the Intel side likely contributes to its higher single-thread performance.

Memory support differs: the AMD chip uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel chip uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel access and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's higher memory bandwidth is a notable architectural advantage for memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Intel processor offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes. The AMD part has more lanes, but the Intel part uses a newer PCIe generation.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 includes Radeon 780M graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H features Arc B390 graphics. The power envelope is similar, with TDP ratings of 28 watts for AMD and 25 watts for Intel. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses BGA 2540.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28,221 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 48 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 250's score of 14,676.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 7 250 win any benchmark comparison?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins the PassMark integer math test with a score of 91,565, which is 4 percent higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H's 88,083.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 3,984 versus the AMD Ryzen 7 250's 1,715, giving Intel a 57 percent lead. PassMark single-thread shows a smaller gap: 4,005 versus 3,678, an 8.2 percent advantage for Intel.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has twice the physical cores but the same thread count.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel's memory bandwidth is roughly 71 percent higher.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 16 MB of shared L3. Intel also provides larger per-core L1 (192 KB versus 64 KB) and L2 (2.5 MB versus 1 MB) caches.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | Intel Core Ultra X7 368H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 16 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 5, 4 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Arc B390 |

| Part Number | 100-000001722 | SA4R7Q9EJ |