AMD Ryzen 7 8700F vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two processors into clearly different strength profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F takes four wins across the head-to-head suite, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H claims thirteen. That raw tally, however, hides the nature of each victory.

The AMD part dominates in data compression, integer math, extended instructions, and random string sorting. Its passmark_data_compression score of 378160 beats the Intel chip by 15.5 percent, and the passmark_integer_math result of 100371 leads by 19.9 percent. Extended instructions come in at 28474 versus 26901, a 5.8 percent edge, while random string sorting finishes at 45425 against 39814, a 14.1 percent advantage. These are focused, throughput-oriented workloads where the Zen 4 architecture's per-core efficiency appears to carry the day.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins everywhere else. Its advantages span rendering, single-threaded performance, encryption, floating-point math, prime number finding, physics simulation, and overall multithreaded throughput. The Cinebench sweep is complete: R15 multicore 2870 versus 2685, R20 multicore 11960 versus 11191, R23 multicore 28477 versus 26646, each landing near 6.4 percent ahead. Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with R23 single core at 4020 versus 3761. PassMark multithread shows 33429 against 30893, a 7.6 percent lead. The largest Intel margins appear in passmark_find_prime_numbers (326 versus 98, a 69.9 percent gap) and passmark_floating_point_math (103615 versus 62629, a 39.6 percent gap). Physics simulation also skews heavily Intel, 2880 versus 1553, a 46.1 percent difference.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F suits integer-heavy, compression-focused, and instruction-extension workloads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H suits rendering, floating-point computation, encryption, and general multithreaded productivity. The data does not show one part as universally faster; it shows two different optimization targets.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H holds the higher overall standing. Its percentileVsAllCpus of 87 versus the AMD part's 82 reflects that position. The average benchmark score reinforces it: 41263 for Intel, 30746 for AMD, a difference of roughly 34 percent. The nearest rival comparisons confirm the gap is not a fluke. The Intel chip sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H and 0.1 percent of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, while trailing the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X by only 0.3 percent. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, by contrast, is 0.4 percent behind the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS, 0.6 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600H, and 0.9 percent ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 225T.

Who should pick which comes down to workload profile. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the stronger all-around choice for rendering, floating-point math, encryption, and physics-heavy tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 28477 and single-core score of 4020 indicate strong performance in both threaded and lightly threaded scenarios. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F, despite losing the overall tally, wins decisively in data compression and integer math, making it the better fit for those specific throughput tasks.

The mobile versus desktop distinction matters here. The Intel part is a mobile processor with a 25 TDP, while the AMD part is a desktop chip with a 65 TDP. The Intel chip delivers its higher average score and broader benchmark wins within a lower power envelope, which is notable in the data. The AMD chip, with its unlocked multiplier and desktop socket, targets a different installation context. Neither part is a universal winner; the data points to the Intel chip for most workloads and the AMD chip for integer and compression duties.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results form a consistent block. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H leads by margins between 6.4 and 6.7 percent. R15 multicore shows 2870 versus 2685, R20 multicore 11960 versus 11191, R23 multicore 28477 versus 26646. Single-core results follow: R15 405 versus 378, R20 1688 versus 1579, R23 4020 versus 3761. The uniformity of these deltas, all clustering near 6.4 percent, suggests a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results are more varied. The Intel chip wins passmark_multithread 33429 to 30893, a 7.6 percent margin, and passmark_single_thread 4043 to 3872, a 4.2 percent margin. Its passmark_data_encryption score of 25845 beats 22117 by 14.4 percent. The floating-point gap is larger still: 103615 versus 62629, a 39.6 percent difference. Prime number finding is the most extreme split, 326 versus 98, a 69.9 percent gap. Physics follows at 2880 versus 1553, a 46.1 percent gap.

The AMD chip's wins are equally pronounced in the other direction. Integer math leads 100371 to 83695, a 19.9 percent margin. Data compression leads 378160 to 327455, a 15.5 percent margin. Random string sorting leads 45425 to 39814, a 14.1 percent margin. Extended instructions lead 28474 to 26901, a 5.8 percent margin. The largest AMD victory, integer math at 19.9 percent, is smaller than the largest Intel victories but still substantial.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H sits at the 87th percentile across all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F sits at the 82nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 28477, which is 6.4 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F's 26646.

Q: In which workloads does the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F win?

A: The AMD chip wins in data compression, integer math, extended instructions, and random string sorting, with margins of 15.5, 19.9, 5.8, and 14.1 percent respectively.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4043 in passmark_single_thread versus 3872 for the AMD part, a 4.2 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 single core, the Intel chip leads 4020 to 3761, a 6.4 percent margin.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How large is the gap in average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records an average benchmark score of 41263, compared to 30746 for the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Phoenix, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Panther Lake architecture, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel, with 16 cores and 16 threads. The core counts differ, but thread counts match because the Intel part does not use simultaneous multithreading in this configuration.

Cache layouts diverge significantly. The AMD chip allocates 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip allocates 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part carries a transistor count that is not recorded in the database, and its die size is likewise unlisted. The AMD part lists 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F supports DDR5 only, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but the recorded memory bandwidth differs: 83.2 GB/s for AMD, 115.2 GB/s for Intel. PCIe generation and lane counts also differ, with the AMD part using Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes and the Intel part using Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is another divergence. The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F has no integrated graphics, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H includes Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither supports ECC memory according to the database.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count: 8 versus 16. Thread count: 16 versus 16. Base clock: 4.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 65 versus 25. Socket: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel BGA 2540. Process node: 4 nm versus 3 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel.

Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 115.2 GB/s, versus 83.2 GB/s for AMD. PCIe configuration favors AMD in lane count with 20 Gen 4 lanes, versus 12 Gen 5 lanes for Intel. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part does not. The AMD part carries a launch MSRP of $270; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Intel part. Release dates differ, with the AMD part recorded as 2024-03-31 and the Intel part as 2026-01-04. The AMD part number is 100-000001590, while the Intel part number is SA4R9Q9EL. The AMD part belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen 7 generation; the Intel part belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 7 generation. Market segments differ: desktop for AMD, mobile for Intel.