AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 Comparison

Both the AMD Ryzen 7 260 and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 are mobile processors built for Socket FP8, but they target very different points in the performance spectrum. The recorded data shows a clear, sweeping victory for the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 across every single benchmark in the database, with the Ryzen 7 260 failing to secure a single win. This analysis breaks down the scale of that dominance, the architectural reasons behind it, and what the numbers mean for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons. The largest margins appear in heavily multi-threaded and compute-intensive tasks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the HX 375 scores 21812 against the Ryzen 7 260's 17211.5, a 21.1% deficit for the 260. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a similar story, 3334 versus 2747.5, a 17.6% gap. The PassMark physics test is the single biggest loss for the Ryzen 7 260, with the HX 375 leading 1819 to 1218, a 33% advantage. Prime number calculation shows a 36.9% deficit (122 vs 77), which is the largest percentage difference in the entire dataset.

The HX 375 also dominates in floating-point and integer math workloads. PassMark floating point math scores 75153 versus 59462, a 20.9% difference, while integer math shows a 20.5% gap (121754 vs 96737). The multi-threaded PassMark suite confirms the trend: 32916 for the HX 375 versus 28078 for the 260, a 14.7% lead. Data compression is another clear win, with the HX 375 at 404918 versus 351517, a 13.2% advantage.

Single-threaded performance tells a more modest story, but the HX 375 still wins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1988 versus 1770.5, a 10.9% gap. The R15 single-core test is closer, 301 versus 276.5, an 8.1% difference. PassMark single-thread scores are 3867 versus 3736, just a 3.4% edge for the HX 375. The smallest margins are in data encryption, where the HX 375 leads 20802 to 20267, only a 2.6% difference, and random string sorting, at 44552 versus 42383, a 4.9% gap. Extended instructions show a 9.3% lead for the HX 375 (29269 vs 26544).

The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: the HX 375 sits at 46030, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 7 260 averages 43717, good for the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals for the HX 375 include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 at 46062 (0.1% ahead) and the Intel Core i9-13900HX at 46098 (0.1% behind), showing it competes at a high tier. The Ryzen 7 260's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43704, a near dead heat, with the Ryzen 7 170 just 0.1% behind.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap is rooted in two major architectural changes. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses Zen 5 on the Strix Point codename. Both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process, but the HX 375 has a larger die at 233 mm² compared to 178 mm² for the 260. The transistor count is listed only for the Ryzen 7 260 at 25,000 million; the HX 375's count is not recorded.

Core counts differ substantially. The Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This 50% increase in core count directly explains the multi-threaded benchmark wins. The L3 cache is the same at 16 MB shared for both, but L1 cache differs: 64 KB per core for the 260 versus 80 KB per core for the HX 375. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core.

Clock speeds reveal a trade-off. The Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The HX 375 has a much lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but the same 5.10 GHz boost. The higher base clock of the 260 does not translate into single-thread wins, as the HX 375's Zen 5 architecture delivers better single-thread scores despite the lower base frequency. The TDP also differs: the 260 is rated at 45 watts, while the HX 375 is rated at 28 watts, meaning the HX 375 delivers more performance at a lower thermal design power.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Radeon 780M, while the HX 375 uses the Radeon 890M. Memory support is broader on the HX 375, which accepts DDR5 and LPDDR5X, versus DDR5 only for the 260. Both use dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe lanes differ: the 260 has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the HX 375 has Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for buyers choosing between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is the superior performer in every recorded benchmark. If maximum compute throughput matters, whether for rendering, physics simulation, or heavy math workloads, the HX 375 is the clear pick. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with Zen 5 architecture, deliver wins ranging from 2.6% to 36.9% over the Ryzen 7 260.

The Ryzen 7 260, despite its higher 45 watt TDP and higher base clock, does not beat the HX 375 in a single test. The HX 375 achieves this while drawing less power on paper (28 watts versus 45 watts), which makes it the more efficient option in the database's recorded specifications. The only scenario where the Ryzen 7 260 appears favorable is if the lower core count is sufficient for a specific task and the higher base clock is prioritized, but the benchmark results do not support a performance advantage for that choice. The HX 375 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 89 versus 88.

For a buyer who values raw multi-threaded performance, the HX 375 is the only choice. For a buyer who needs a processor with fewer cores for lighter workloads, the Ryzen 7 260 still delivers solid mid-range performance, but it is not the winner in any measured category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins with a score of 21812, which is 21.1% higher than the Ryzen 7 260's 17211.5.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest percentage gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the HX 375 scores 122 versus 77 for the Ryzen 7 260, a 36.9% difference.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 260 have a higher clock speed?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz, while the HX 375 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz. Both have the same boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which processor has a lower thermal design power?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Ryzen 7 260 has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Ryzen 7 260 wins?

A: No. The database records 15 head-to-head benchmarks, and the HX 375 wins all of them. The Ryzen 7 260 has zero wins.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins in every workload category tested. There is no use case in the database where the Ryzen 7 260 takes the lead. The HX 375's advantages are largest in multi-threaded tasks. Cinebench R23 multi-core, PassMark physics, and prime number calculation show deficits of 21.1%, 33%, and 36.9% respectively for the Ryzen 7 260. These are tasks that scale with core count and architecture efficiency, which explains the HX 375's 12-core advantage over the 8-core 260.

Single-threaded workloads are closer, with the HX 375 leading by 3.4% in PassMark single-thread and 8.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core. This suggests the Zen 5 architecture in the HX 375 provides a meaningful IPC improvement over Zen 4, even at a lower base clock. The smallest gaps appear in data encryption (2.6%) and random string sorting (4.9%), indicating that the Ryzen 7 260 is not far behind in memory-latency-sensitive or lightweight tasks.

The Ryzen 7 260 does have a higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 2.00 GHz) and a lower average benchmark score (43717 vs 46030). Its place in the 88th percentile versus the HX 375's 89th shows it is still a capable processor in the broader market. For users whose workloads are not heavily multi-threaded, the Ryzen 7 260 remains a reasonable choice, but the database cannot point to a single benchmark where it outperforms the HX 375.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specifications. The Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, while the HX 375 uses Zen 5 with the Strix Point codename. Both are on TSMC's 4 nm process, but the die size is 178 mm² for the 260 and 233 mm² for the HX 375. The transistor count is 25,000 million for the 260, with no figure recorded for the HX 375.

Core and thread counts are 8/16 for the 260 and 12/24 for the HX 375. Base clocks are 3.80 GHz for the 260 and 2.00 GHz for the HX 375, with identical 5.10 GHz boost clocks. TDP is 45 watts for the 260 and 28 watts for the HX 375. L1 cache is 64 KB per core for the 260 and 80 KB per core for the HX 375. L2 cache is 1 MB per core for both, and L3 cache is 16 MB shared for both.

Memory support differs: the 260 supports DDR5 only, while the HX 375 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe lanes are Gen 4 with 20 lanes for the 260 and Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the HX 375. Integrated graphics are the Radeon 780M for the 260 and the Radeon 890M for the HX 375. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as active production mobile parts. Release dates differ, with the HX 375 released on 2024-06-30 and the 260 on 2025-01-05.