AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive split between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins 12 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 takes only 3. The margin of victory, however, varies dramatically by workload type.

The largest Intel win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 against the Ryzen 7 260's 1770.5, a 56% advantage. This is the single biggest gap in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 multi-core tells a similar story: Intel scores 28477 versus AMD's 17211.5, a 39.6% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel leads 405 to 276.5, a 31.7% difference, and in R15 multi-core the gap narrows to 4.3% (2870 versus 2747.5).

PassMark results reinforce the Intel advantage in compute-heavy tasks. Floating point math shows Intel at 103615 versus AMD's 59462, a 42.6% lead. Physics performance favors Intel heavily: 2880 versus 1218, a 57.7% margin. Prime number finding is even more lopsided: Intel scores 326 versus AMD's 77, a 76.4% gap. Data encryption goes to Intel at 25845 versus 20267, a 21.6% difference. Extended instructions are nearly tied, with Intel ahead just 1.3% (26901 versus 26544). Multi-thread PassMark shows Intel at 33429 versus 28078, a 16% lead, and single-thread PassMark gives Intel 4043 versus 3736, a 7.6% margin.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins are narrower but real. Data compression favors AMD at 351517 versus 327455, a 7.3% lead. Integer math goes to AMD at 96737 versus 83695, a 15.6% advantage. Random string sorting lands with AMD at 42383 versus 39814, a 6.5% difference.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect the same hierarchy. The Ryzen 7 260 records an average benchmark score of 43717 and sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263 and sits in the 87th percentile. Despite Intel winning most head-to-head tests, the average scores remain close because AMD's wins in compression, integer math, and sorting are large absolute numbers that pull its average up. The Ryzen 7 260's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 (delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 7 170 (delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (delta 0.7%), and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (delta 0.9%). The Core Ultra 7 366H's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (delta -0.3%), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (delta 0.7%).

The Verdict

The data points to two different usage profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the stronger processor for single-threaded responsiveness, floating-point workloads, physics simulation, encryption, and prime-number computation. Its 56% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 57.7% lead in PassMark physics indicate a clear edge for applications that depend on per-core speed and math throughput.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in data compression, integer math, and random string sorting. These are tasks that respond well to its architecture's specific strengths. The 15.6% margin in integer math is the largest AMD victory, and the 7.3% compression lead shows the Ryzen 7 260 handles that workload class more efficiently.

The average benchmark scores, 43717 for AMD versus 41263 for Intel, differ by only about 5.6%, even though Intel wins 12 of 15 individual tests. The explanation is that AMD's wins land in high-magnitude tests, while Intel's wins in smaller tests like extended instructions and single-thread PassMark contribute less to the overall average. The percentile ranking puts both processors within one point of each other, 88th versus 87th.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. It leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 56% (4020 versus 1770.5), in Cinebench R15 single-core by 31.7% (405 versus 276.5), and in PassMark single-thread by 7.6% (4043 versus 3736).

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. It scores 28477 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 17211.5 for the AMD Ryzen 7 260, a 39.6% lead. It also leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2870 versus 2747.5) and PassMark multi-thread (33429 versus 28078).

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

A: Yes. The Ryzen 7 260 wins in PassMark data compression (351517 versus 327455, a 7.3% lead), integer math (96737 versus 83695, a 15.6% lead), and random string sorting (42383 versus 39814, a 6.5% lead).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has an average benchmark score of 43717 and ranks in the 88th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41263 and ranks in the 87th percentile. The difference is roughly 5.6% in AMD's favor.

Q: Which processor has better encryption performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. It scores 25845 in PassMark data encryption versus 20267 for the AMD Ryzen 7 260, a 21.6% advantage.

Q: How large is the gap in physics performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H leads PassMark physics with 2880 versus 1218 for the AMD Ryzen 7 260, a 57.7% margin. This is one of the largest single-test differences in the comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: AMD runs at 3.80 GHz, Intel at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.10 GHz and Intel at 4.80 GHz. The TDP ratings are 45 watts for AMD and 25 watts for Intel, a notable power envelope difference.

The AMD processor uses the AMD Socket FP8, while Intel uses the Intel BGA 2540 socket. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process from TSMC with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part uses a 3 nm process from Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded in the database. Cache layouts differ: AMD provides 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support shows Intel supporting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while AMD lists only DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 115.2 GB/s versus AMD's 89.6 GB/s. PCIe support differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, Intel offers Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are the Radeon 780M on the AMD side and Intel Xe3 Graphics on the Intel side. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ by about a year: AMD released on 2025-01-05, Intel on 2026-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake architecture under the Panther Lake codename. AMD is on a 4 nm TSMC process; Intel is on a 3 nm Intel process. The production status for both is listed as Active.

Core organization differs in a way that affects threading behavior. AMD lists 8 cores with 16 threads, meaning each core supports two threads. Intel lists 16 cores with 16 threads, indicating a 1:1 core-to-thread ratio. The Intel part also carries the Core Ultra Series 3 branding and belongs to the Ultra 7 generation (Panther Lake-H). AMD's generation is listed as Ryzen 7 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)).

The cache hierarchy is larger on the Intel side per core: 192 KB L1 versus 64 KB, and 2.5 MB L2 versus 1 MB. The shared L3 is 18 MB on Intel versus 16 MB on AMD. The Intel processor also has the higher memory bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s, which aligns with its support for LPDDR5X memory. The AMD processor compensates with a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, though the Intel part's higher single-core benchmark scores suggest its architecture extracts more performance per clock in the recorded tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the choice for workloads dominated by floating-point math, physics, encryption, and single-threaded responsiveness. The 42.6% lead in floating-point math and the 57.7% lead in physics point to simulation, rendering, and engineering applications. The 21.6% encryption lead matters for security-sensitive tasks. The 56% single-core Cinebench lead indicates faster general application feel in lightly threaded software. The 39.6% multi-core Cinebench lead also makes it the stronger pick for heavily threaded rendering workloads that scale across its 16 cores.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in data compression, integer math, and random string sorting. The 15.6% integer math lead suggests better performance in database operations, file archiving, and other integer-heavy tasks. The 7.3% data compression lead and the 6.5% random string sorting lead reinforce that profile. The higher 5.10 GHz boost clock and the 45 watt TDP envelope indicate the AMD part is tuned for sustained high-frequency work, though the database does not record any power consumption measurements to confirm that behavior.

The average score difference is small enough that both processors sit in the same performance tier, 88th versus 87th percentile. The Intel part wins the majority of tests and wins them by large margins in several categories. The AMD part wins fewer tests but holds its average score close through high-magnitude wins. In practice, the choice depends on whether the workload leans toward Intel's strengths in math and physics or AMD's strengths in integer and compression tasks.