AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive split between the AMD Ryzen 7 260 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, with Intel claiming 11 wins against AMD's 4 across 15 comparable tests. The largest margin belongs to Intel in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core Ultra X7 368H scores 3984 against the Ryzen 7 260's 1770.5, a gap of 55.6%. That is the single biggest delta recorded in the head-to-head comparison. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core: Intel posts 28221 versus AMD's 17211.5, a 39% advantage. These two results alone establish Intel's dominance in CPU rendering workloads, which are heavily dependent on single-thread efficiency and multi-core scaling.

The Cinebench R15 results reinforce the trend, though with smaller margins. In multi-core, Intel leads 2844 to 2747.5, a 3.4% edge. In single-core, the Intel part scores 401 against AMD's 276.5, a 31% lead. The R15 single-core test is particularly notable because it rewards high clock speeds and per-core instruction throughput, areas where the Intel architecture shows a clear advantage.

PassMark's floating-point math test also favors Intel heavily. The Core Ultra X7 368H scores 105681 versus the Ryzen 7 260's 59462, a 43.7% lead. Similarly, the physics test shows Intel at 2857 against AMD's 1218, a 57.4% margin. Prime number finding is another Intel win at 321 versus 77, a 76% difference, the largest percentage delta in the entire dataset. The encryption test goes to Intel as well: 25228 against 20267, a 19.7% lead. The multi-thread PassMark test shows Intel ahead at 32956 versus 28078, a 14.8% gap. Even in single-thread PassMark, Intel leads 4005 to 3736, a 6.7% margin.

AMD's wins are concentrated in specific workloads. The data compression test shows the Ryzen 7 260 ahead at 351517 versus 312927, a 12.3% advantage. Integer math favors AMD at 96737 versus 88083, a 9.8% lead. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 42383 versus 38093, an 11.3% edge. Extended instructions also favor AMD, though narrowly: 26544 versus 25669, a 3.4% margin. These four wins share a common thread: they are memory-latency-sensitive or rely on specialized instruction paths where AMD's Zen 4 implementation appears more efficient per clock.

Where Each One Wins

Looking at the benchmark distribution, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks that scale with core count and high clock speeds. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28221 places it far ahead of the Ryzen 7 260's 17211.5, meaning video rendering, 3D scene compilation, and other CPU-bound creative workloads will complete substantially faster on the Intel part. The 55.6% single-core lead in R23 translates directly to snappier response in lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software that cannot use multiple cores effectively.

The PassMark physics test result, where Intel leads by 57.4%, indicates stronger performance in simulation and game physics calculations. The 76% lead in prime number finding suggests Intel's integer pipeline handles sequential mathematical operations more efficiently. Encryption performance, where Intel leads by 19.7%, matters for disk encryption, VPN throughput, and secure communication workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins in areas that involve data movement and pattern recognition. Data compression, where AMD leads by 12.3%, is a workload that benefits from large cache hierarchies and efficient branch prediction. Random string sorting, an 11.3% AMD advantage, also relies on memory access patterns and cache behavior. Integer math, where AMD leads by 9.8%, covers general arithmetic operations used in databases, spreadsheets, and financial modeling. Extended instructions, a 3.4% AMD win, points to better execution of SIMD-style operations that are common in media encoding and scientific calculations.

For users who prioritize raw throughput in multi-core rendering, Intel is the dominant option. For users who work with compressed data, sort large datasets, or run integer-heavy analytics, AMD holds the advantage. The overall average benchmark score reflects this split: the AMD part records 43717 against Intel's 40518, a difference driven by AMD's strong showings in the PassMark suite, which carries more weight in the aggregate score than the Cinebench tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses 8 cores and 16 threads based on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process. The chip contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses 16 cores and 16 threads based on the Panther Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's 3 nm process. The Intel part has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

The core count difference is notable: Intel has twice as many physical cores, but neither chip supports simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part uses 8 cores with 16 threads, meaning each core handles two threads. The Intel part uses 16 cores with 16 threads, meaning each core handles exactly one thread. This explains why Intel's multi-core Cinebench R23 score is 39% higher despite having the same thread count: the 16 physical cores provide better raw parallel execution without the overhead of thread switching.

Cache configurations also differ substantially. The AMD part provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches contribute to its 55.6% single-core lead in Cinebench R23, as more data can stay close to the execution units. The slightly larger L3 cache on Intel (18 MB versus 16 MB) helps with multi-core workloads that share data.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The AMD part runs at a much higher base frequency, which explains its competitiveness in memory-latency-sensitive workloads like data compression. The Intel part relies on its architectural efficiency and larger caches to overcome the lower base clock, achieving higher scores in most tests despite the 100 MHz lower boost ceiling.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part uses DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s. The 71% higher memory bandwidth on Intel likely contributes to its leads in floating-point math and physics, which are bandwidth-hungry workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The newer PCIe standard on Intel offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the lane count is lower.

Integrated graphics differentiate the two as well. The AMD part includes Radeon 780M, while the Intel part includes Arc B390. The database does not record benchmark scores for either iGPU, so a direct comparison is unavailable. Both chips are mobile parts with active production status. The AMD part uses socket AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins 11 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, all three PassMark math tests, encryption, physics, prime number finding, and multi-thread. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins 4 tests, all in the PassMark suite: data compression, integer math, random string sorting, and extended instructions.

Users who prioritize rendering workloads, scientific computation, encryption, or any task that scales with core count should select the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. Its 39% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 55.6% lead in single-core are decisive. The 14.8% multi-thread PassMark advantage reinforces this recommendation. The Intel part also delivers higher memory bandwidth, which benefits memory-bound applications.

Users who work with compressed data, perform integer-heavy analytics, or sort large datasets should consider the AMD Ryzen 7 260. Its 12.3% data compression lead and 9.8% integer math advantage are meaningful for those specific workloads. The AMD part also has a higher base clock and uses a more mature socket ecosystem with more PCIe lanes.

The average benchmark score favors AMD at 43717 versus 40518, a 7.9% aggregate advantage. However, this average is skewed by the PassMark tests, where AMD wins four out of nine categories. The Cinebench tests, which are more representative of professional rendering workloads, go entirely to Intel. The percentile rankings are close: AMD sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, Intel at the 87th. The nearest rival data shows AMD's closest competitor is the Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 with a 0% delta, while Intel's closest is the Core 7 253PE with a -0.1% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores. Both support 16 threads, but Intel uses 16 physical cores with one thread each, while AMD uses 8 cores with two threads each.

Q: What is the largest benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark's prime number finding test, where Intel scores 321 against AMD's 77, a 76% difference. The second largest is Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel leads by 55.6%.

Q: In which workloads does the AMD Ryzen 7 260 outperform the Intel part?

A: The AMD part wins in data compression (12.3% ahead), integer math (9.8% ahead), random string sorting (11.3% ahead), and extended instructions (3.4% ahead). These are memory-latency-sensitive and integer-heavy workloads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. AMD's base clock is 1.80 GHz higher, while Intel's boost clock is 100 MHz lower.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Intel has larger per-core caches and 2 MB more L3.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s using LPDDR5X, while the AMD Ryzen 7 260 has 89.6 GB/s using DDR5. Intel's memory bandwidth is 64 GB/s higher.