AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core 7 350

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and the Intel Core 7 350 represent two fundamentally different approaches to processor design. The Ryzen 7 8700F is a desktop-focused, high-core-count part built on a mature 4 nm process, while the Core 7 350 is a mobile-focused, efficiency-oriented chip on a newer 3 nm node. Benchmark data shows a decisive overall performance gap, with the AMD part winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Intel chip countering with wins in single-threaded workloads and a specific prime-number calculation. The analysis below details where each processor excels, the architectural reasons for those differences, and what the recorded measurements imply for real-world usage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part also has a much higher base clock at 4.10 GHz compared to the Intel's 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in a multi-threaded test?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 26646 against the Intel Core 7 350's 8030, a 231.8% advantage. The AMD part also leads by 103.6% in Passmark multithread, scoring 30893 versus 15170.

Q: In which tests does the Intel Core 7 350 win?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 wins in three tests: Passmark find prime numbers (107 versus 98, a delta of -8.4% for AMD), and both Passmark single-thread and singlethread tests, where it scores 4100 against the AMD's 3872, a 5.6% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has an average benchmark score of 30746, placing it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 350 has an average score of 17779, placing it in the 71st percentile.

Q: What are the memory and PCIe specifications for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F supports dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s and provides Gen 4 PCIe with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Intel Core 7 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but only in a single-channel configuration, with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and provides Gen 4 PCIe with 6 lanes.

Q: Are both processors from the same market segment?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is listed as a Desktop processor using AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel Core 7 350 is a Mobile processor using Intel BGA 1516. This distinction aligns with their power envelopes: 65 W TDP for the AMD part and 15 W TDP for the Intel part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Phoenix, fabricated by TSMC on a 4 nm process. It packs 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and is built by Intel on a 3 nm process, with transistor count and die size not recorded in the database.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus a 16 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides a larger 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 per core, but only a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L2 on the Intel chip suggests a design tuned for per-thread performance, while the AMD chip's larger shared L3 and higher core count favor multi-threaded throughput.

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is socketed (AM5) with an unlocked multiplier, indicating a desktop part intended for overclocking and user-upgradeable platforms. The Intel Core 7 350 is a BGA 1516 mobile chip with a locked multiplier, meaning it is soldered and not user-upgradeable. The Intel part includes integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores), while the AMD part has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Memory architecture is another key divider. The AMD part runs a dual-channel memory bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. This gives the AMD processor a 23.5 GB/s theoretical bandwidth advantage, which directly impacts memory-intensive tasks such as data compression and encryption. Neither processor supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F dominates in almost every heavy multi-threaded workload. It wins all three Cinebench multicore tests (R15, R20, R23) with deltas ranging from 108.3% to 231.8%. It also wins Passmark data compression by 164.2%, data encryption by 102.3%, extended instructions by 136.4%, floating point math by 46.3%, integer math by 197.5%, multithread by 103.6%, physics by 32.4%, and random string sorting by 163.5%. This pattern is consistent with its 8-core/16-thread configuration and higher TDP of 65 W, which allows sustained high clocks under load.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins in a narrow but meaningful slice of the workload spectrum. It takes Passmark find prime numbers with a score of 107 versus 98, a 8.4% advantage for Intel. More notably, it wins both Passmark single-thread tests with a score of 4100 versus 3872, a 5.6% margin. This suggests that despite having fewer cores and a much lower base clock, the Intel part's architecture (likely due to the newer 3 nm process and larger per-core caches) can execute single-threaded integer workloads more efficiently.

For users running heavily threaded applications like video rendering, 3D modeling, or server-side compilation, the AMD part's wins are overwhelming. For users with light, single-threaded tasks or those constrained by a 15 W power budget in a mobile chassis, the Intel part's single-thread advantage and lower TDP make it a viable choice, albeit with far lower overall throughput.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the fields where the two processors differ directly:

• Cores: 8 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Threads: 16 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 4.10 GHz (AMD) vs 1.50 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 5.00 GHz (AMD) vs 4.80 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 65 W (AMD) vs 15 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket AM5 (AMD) vs Intel BGA 1516 (Intel)
• Process Node: 4 nm (AMD) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) vs Intel (Intel)
• Transistors: 25,000 million (AMD) vs not recorded (Intel)
• Die Size: 178 mm² (AMD) vs not recorded (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) vs 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs 2.5 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 16 MB shared (AMD) vs 6 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (AMD) vs DDR5, LPDDR5X (Intel)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (AMD) vs Single-channel (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s (AMD) vs 59.7 GB/s (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 Lanes (AMD) vs Gen 4, 6 Lanes (Intel)
• Integrated Graphics: N/A (AMD) vs Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) (Intel)
• Market Segment: Desktop (AMD) vs Mobile (Intel)
• Release Date: 2024-03-31 (AMD) vs 2026-04-15 (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: $270 (AMD) vs $469 (Intel)
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes (AMD) vs No (Intel)
• Part Number: 100-000001590 (AMD) vs SAE3F (Intel)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a lopsided contest. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F scores 26646 against the Intel Core 7 350's 8030, a 231.8% delta. This is the single largest win for the AMD part. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the AMD part leads 11191 to 5373, a 108.3% delta, and in R15 multicore it leads 2685 to 1220, a 120.1% delta.

Passmark integer math is another decisive win for AMD: 100371 versus 33734, a 197.5% delta. Data compression shows 378160 versus 143123, a 164.2% delta, and random string sorting shows 45425 versus 17238, a 163.5% delta. Extended instructions and data encryption also favor AMD by 136.4% and 102.3%, respectively. Floating point math is closer, with AMD leading 62629 to 42809, a 46.3% delta. Passmark physics gives AMD a 32.4% lead (1553 versus 1173).

The single-core results are more nuanced. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD still wins by a wide margin: 3761 versus 2046, an 83.8% delta. In R20 single-core, AMD leads 1579 to 758, a 108.3% delta, and in R15 single-core, AMD leads 378 to 292, a 29.5% delta. However, in Passmark single-thread, the Intel part reverses the trend: 4100 versus 3872, a 5.6% margin for Intel. The same score appears in Passmark singlethread. The only other Intel win is Passmark find prime numbers, 107 versus 98, an 8.4% margin.

The data suggests a split between the AMD part's superiority in Cinebench's rendering workloads and the Intel part's edge in pure Passmark single-thread integer operations. The AMD wins are often multiples (over 100% deltas), while the Intel wins are single-digit percentages. This indicates that for any task that can utilize more than one thread, the AMD processor is overwhelmingly faster. The Intel part's wins are confined to niche, single-threaded calculations.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear verdict: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is the superior processor for nearly all compute-intensive work. It wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, and its victories are frequently by margins exceeding 100%. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, dual-channel memory, and 65 W TDP enable sustained multi-threaded performance that the Intel Core 7 350 cannot approach. The AMD part also holds a higher average benchmark score (30746 versus 17779) and a higher percentile rank (82nd versus 71st).

The Intel Core 7 350 has a specific niche. Its single-thread Passmark score of 4100 beats the AMD part's 3872, and its find prime numbers score is higher. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-portable mobile designs, and its integrated graphics (Intel Xe3 Graphics) provides display output where the AMD part has none. Its 3 nm process and larger per-core L2 cache (2.5 MB versus 1 MB) likely contribute to its single-thread efficiency.

Users building a desktop system with an AM5 motherboard should choose the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F without hesitation, given its massive multi-threaded lead and lower launch MSRP of $270. Users constrained to a mobile platform with a 15 W power envelope, or those who need integrated graphics, must consider the Intel Core 7 350, accepting its lower overall throughput for its efficiency and portability. The database shows no scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part in a heavily threaded application.