AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 3 205 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the AMD Ryzen 7 260 and Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is nearly even, with Intel taking 8 wins and AMD taking 7. But the nature of those wins reveals a clear workload separation. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 dominates integer-heavy and data-oriented tasks. It wins PassMark integer math by 76.7%, data compression by 34.9%, and random string sorting by 36.4%. These are classic productivity and database workloads where the Ryzen's 16 threads provide a decisive advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205, by contrast, wins the single-core and lightly-threaded contests. It takes Cinebench R23 single-core by 36.8%, PassMark single-thread by 18.3%, and Cinebench R15 single-core by 2%. It also wins PassMark physics by 39.6% and floating-point math by 20.9%. The physics result is notable: the Intel part scores 2016 versus AMD's 1218, a gap that suggests better handling of simulation and physics-heavy code despite having only 8 threads.

The multi-core picture is mixed. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 37.3% (2747.5 vs 2001) and PassMark multi-thread by 7.3% (28078 vs 26167). But the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 13.3% (19856 vs 17211.5). This divergence between two multi-core tests points to different scaling behavior: the AMD part excels in the older R15 workload, while the Intel part handles the newer R23 test better despite fewer threads.

The Verdict

The database shows two distinct usage profiles. For integer math, data compression, sorting, encryption, and general multi-threaded productivity, the AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the stronger choice. Its 16 threads versus Intel's 8 threads translate directly into wins in PassMark multi-thread, data compression, and integer math. The AMD part also sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs, compared to Intel's 82nd percentile, and its average benchmark score of 43717 far exceeds Intel's 31473.

For single-thread performance, physics simulation, floating-point math, and prime number finding, the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 takes the lead. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4575 versus AMD's 3736 is a substantial 18.3% margin. The Intel part also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by a wide 36.8% margin, which indicates significantly better per-core efficiency in modern rendering workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 is a desktop part with a launch MSRP of $140. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The AMD part is a mobile processor on Socket FP8, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Socket 1851. Users building a desktop system should note that the Intel part fits standard desktop motherboards, while the AMD part requires a mobile platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen 7 260 appears in PassMark integer math, where it scores 96737 versus Intel's 54755, a 76.7% advantage. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression follows with 351517 versus 260651, a 34.9% lead. Random string sorting shows 42383 versus 31083, a 36.4% margin. Data encryption adds an 8% win (20267 vs 18772), and extended instructions show a 17.6% advantage (26544 vs 22578). Cinebench R15 multi-core gives AMD a 37.3% win (2747.5 vs 2001), and PassMark multi-thread adds a 7.3% win (28078 vs 26167).

The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 counters with its own set of decisive wins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2803 versus 1770.5, a 36.8% margin. PassMark find prime numbers delivers 268 versus 77, a 71.3% advantage. PassMark physics shows 2016 versus 1218, a 39.6% lead. Floating-point math gives 75136 versus 59462, a 20.9% win. PassMark single-thread shows 4575 versus 3736, an 18.3% margin. Cinebench R23 multi-core delivers 19856 versus 17211.5, a 13.3% win. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a narrow 2% edge (282 vs 276.5).

The two PassMark multi-thread results are close, with AMD winning by only 7.3%. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test flips that result, with Intel winning by 13.3%. This inconsistency suggests that the two CPUs respond differently to the specific instruction mixes in each benchmark, rather than one having a universal multi-core advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins every single-thread test. It leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 36.8%, PassMark single-thread by 18.3%, and Cinebench R15 single-core by 2%.

Q: Which CPU handles multi-threaded workloads better?

A: The results are split. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 37.3% and PassMark multi-thread by 7.3%, but the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 13.3%.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the largest delta, with the AMD Ryzen 7 260 scoring 96737 versus the Intel Core Ultra 3 205's 54755, a 76.7% advantage.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: Both CPUs have 8 cores, but the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 16 threads while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has 8 threads. The AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading; the Intel part does not.

Q: Which CPU has better physics simulation performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 wins PassMark physics with a score of 2016 versus the AMD Ryzen 7 260's 1218, a 39.6% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has an average benchmark score of 43717, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has an average of 31473. The AMD part sits at the 88th percentile versus Intel's 82nd.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arrow Lake architecture on the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on TSMC's 3 nm process. It contains 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. The Intel part uses a newer process node but packs fewer transistors across a larger die area.

Cache structures differ significantly. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 15 MB of shared L3. The Intel part provides substantially more L1 and L2 cache per core, while the AMD part offers slightly more shared L3.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses a Radeon 780M, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 16EU. The AMD part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part is from the Ryzen 7 generation under Zen 4 Hawk Point, and the Intel part is from the Core Ultra Series 2 generation under Arrow Lake.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share several specifications: both have 8 cores, both have a base clock of 3.80 GHz, both support DDR5 memory, both use dual-channel memory buses, and neither supports ECC memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Clock speeds differ at boost. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 boosts to 4.90 GHz. The AMD part has a 45 W TDP, while the Intel part has a 57 W TDP. The AMD part has 16 threads versus Intel's 8 threads.

Memory bandwidth differs: the AMD part delivers 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part delivers 102.4 GB/s. PCIe support differs as well: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD part has a 4 nm process node versus Intel's 3 nm. The AMD part measures 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors, while the Intel part measures 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a part number of 100-000001724, while the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has a part number of SRVFC. The AMD part was released on 2025-01-05, and the Intel part was released on 2025-07-31. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $140; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both CPUs are listed as Active in production status. The AMD part targets the mobile market segment, while the Intel part targets the desktop market segment.