AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison
AMD Ryzen 7 260
Core Ultra 5 338H
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more physical cores, and how does that affect multithreaded performance?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite fewer physical cores, the AMD part wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test with 17211.5 points versus 16331 points for Intel, a 5.4% advantage.
Q: How large is the single-core performance gap between the two chips?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H leads decisively in single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 2044 against AMD's 1770.5, a 13.4% margin. The PassMark single-thread test shows 4180 for Intel versus 3736 for AMD, a 10.6% difference.
Q: Which processor is better for integer-heavy math tasks?
A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 dominates integer math. It scores 96737 in PassMark integer math versus 64934 for Intel, a 49% advantage. This is the largest win for AMD across all head-to-head benchmarks.
Q: What about floating-point math and physics simulations?
A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H takes clear wins in both categories. It scores 84067 in PassMark floating-point math versus 59462 for AMD, a 29.3% lead. In PassMark physics, Intel's 2697 far exceeds AMD's 1218, a 54.8% advantage.
Q: How do the two compare in data compression and encryption?
A: AMD wins data compression with 351517 versus 276539, a 27.1% lead. Intel wins data encryption with 21367 versus 20267, a 5.1% margin. The results show AMD is stronger at compression while Intel holds a smaller edge in encryption.
Q: What is the overall benchmark percentile ranking for each processor?
A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 ranks in the 88th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H ranks in the 84th percentile. AMD's average benchmark score is 43717, and Intel's is 33989.
Architecture Differences
The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. These are fundamentally different design approaches: AMD relies on 8 cores with simultaneous multithreading (16 threads), while Intel uses 12 cores without hyperthreading (12 threads).
Cache hierarchies differ notably. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with 16 MB shared L3. Intel allocates 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, with 18 MB shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches likely contribute to its single-thread superiority, while AMD's smaller per-core caches but shared L3 design still delivers competitive multicore results.
Memory support diverges: AMD uses DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth. Intel's memory bandwidth advantage is substantial (52% higher), which may explain its floating-point and physics performance wins. PCIe support also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes.
Integrated graphics differ: AMD pairs the Radeon 780M, while Intel uses Arc B370. The production status is Active for both, with AMD releasing on 2025-01-05 and Intel on 2026-01-04. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. AMD's die size is 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors; Intel's die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data shows 15 benchmark comparisons, with Intel winning 9 and AMD winning 6. The largest AMD victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the Ryzen 7 260 scores 96737 against Intel's 64934, a 49% lead. AMD also wins data compression by 27.1% (351517 versus 276539) and random string sorting by 24.4% (42383 versus 34082). In Cinebench R15 multicore, AMD leads 2747.5 versus 2504, a 9.7% margin, and in R23 multicore the lead is 5.4% (17211.5 versus 16331). AMD also wins extended instructions with 26544 versus 23906, an 11% advantage.
Intel's biggest win is in PassMark physics, where it scores 2697 against AMD's 1218, a 54.8% lead. Intel also dominates find prime numbers with 304 versus 77, a 74.7% advantage. Floating-point math goes to Intel by 29.3% (84067 versus 59462). Single-core tests favor Intel consistently: Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 13.4% lead (2044 versus 1770.5), R15 single-core shows 9.3% (305 versus 276.5), and PassMark single-thread shows 10.6% (4180 versus 3736). Intel narrowly wins PassMark multithread with 28717 versus 28078, a 2.2% margin, and data encryption with 21367 versus 20267, a 5.1% lead.
The pattern is clear: AMD wins integer-heavy, compression, and sorting workloads, while Intel wins floating-point, physics, prime number, and single-thread tasks. The Cinebench multicore results show AMD ahead despite Intel's core count advantage, indicating AMD's SMT implementation and Zen 4 efficiency are effective in sustained multicore rendering.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads; Intel has 12 cores and 12 threads. AMD's base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz; Intel's base clock is 1.90 GHz with a boost of 4.70 GHz. AMD's TDP is 45 watts; Intel's is 25 watts. AMD uses AMD Socket FP8; Intel uses Intel BGA 2540.
Process node differs: AMD is on 4 nm TSMC, Intel is on 3 nm Intel. AMD's L1 cache is 64 KB per core; Intel's is 192 KB per core. AMD's L2 is 1 MB per core; Intel's is 2.5 MB per core. L3 is 16 MB shared on AMD and 18 MB shared on Intel. Memory support: AMD uses DDR5, Intel uses LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth: AMD 89.6 GB/s, Intel 136.5 GB/s. PCIe: AMD Gen 4 with 20 lanes, Intel Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics: AMD Radeon 780M, Intel Arc B370. Release dates differ by roughly one year. The part numbers are 100-000001724 for AMD and SA4REQ9EW for Intel. Both have ECC memory disabled and locked multipliers.
The Verdict
The benchmark data indicates two distinct performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 is the stronger choice for integer math, data compression, random string sorting, and multicore rendering in Cinebench. It wins 6 of the 15 head-to-head tests, including both Cinebench multicore benchmarks and the largest overall margin (49% in integer math). Its 88th percentile ranking versus Intel's 84th percentile aligns with its higher average benchmark score of 43717 versus 33989.
The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the stronger choice for single-threaded workloads, floating-point math, physics simulations, and prime number finding. It wins 9 of the 15 tests, including all single-core benchmarks and the largest overall margin (74.7% in find prime numbers). The Intel part also delivers a higher memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, which likely contributes to its floating-point and physics advantages.
For users prioritizing rendering, compression, and integer-heavy productivity, the AMD Ryzen 7 260 delivers the better results. For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness, scientific computing, and physics-based workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the data-supported choice. The 45-watt TDP of AMD versus 25-watt TDP of Intel also indicates different thermal envelopes, with Intel potentially fitting into thinner mobile chassis.
Where Each One Wins
AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in: Cinebench R15 multicore (2747.5 versus 2504, 9.7%), Cinebench R23 multicore (17211.5 versus 16331, 5.4%), PassMark data compression (351517 versus 276539, 27.1%), PassMark extended instructions (26544 versus 23906, 11%), PassMark integer math (96737 versus 64934, 49%), and PassMark random string sorting (42383 versus 34082, 24.4%). These wins point to workloads involving database operations, file compression, sorting algorithms, and integer-heavy application logic.
Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in: Cinebench R15 single-core (305 versus 276.5, 9.3%), Cinebench R23 single-core (2044 versus 1770.5, 13.4%), PassMark data encryption (21367 versus 20267, 5.1%), PassMark find prime numbers (304 versus 77, 74.7%), PassMark floating-point math (84067 versus 59462, 29.3%), PassMark multithread (28717 versus 28078, 2.2%), PassMark physics (2697 versus 1218, 54.8%), and PassMark single-thread (4180 versus 3736, 10.6%). These wins indicate advantages in scientific computing, physics engines, encryption workloads, and applications that rely heavily on single-core clock speed.