AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX and Intel Core Ultra 7 366H are both 16-core mobile processors, but they are engineered for different workloads and power envelopes. The AMD part, a Dragon Range chip built on TSMC’s 5 nm process, delivers dominant multi-threaded throughput with 32 threads, while the Intel part, a Panther Lake-H chip on Intel’s 3 nm node, offers superior single-core speed and efficiency in a 25 W package. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split: the Ryzen wins 8 of 13 head-to-head tests, while the Intel wins 5, but the nature of those wins reveals distinct use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX wins in heavily parallel workloads. Its 16 cores and 32 threads allow it to dominate integer math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, floating-point math, random string sorting, and multithreaded PassMark tests. It also takes the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, which is a standard proxy for rendering and video encoding tasks. The scale of these wins is substantial: integer math is 142.4% ahead, data compression is 111.9% ahead, and random string sorting is 105.4% ahead. For any task that can use more than 16 threads, the Ryzen 9 7940HX is the stronger choice.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in single-threaded and latency-sensitive tests. It takes the Cinebench R23 single-core test by a wide margin, 4020 versus 1807, which is a 55% advantage. It also wins PassMark single-thread, PassMark physics, and PassMark find prime numbers. The physics result is notable because it suggests better performance in simulation or game physics calculations that depend on a few fast cores. The Intel part also has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 115.2 GB/s compared to 83.2 GB/s for the AMD part, which benefits workloads that stream large amounts of data through the memory subsystem.

The split is therefore straightforward. Content creation, 3D rendering, code compilation, and scientific computing favor the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX. General responsiveness, lightly threaded applications, and tasks that rely on single-core frequency favor the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. The Intel part also operates at a lower 25 W TDP, while the AMD part is rated at 55 W, so the Intel chip is better suited for thinner, cooler systems where sustained multi-core performance is less critical.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 29400, which is 3.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H’s 28477. The AMD part wins this test.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 4020 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 1807 for the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX. That is a 55% advantage for Intel. The Intel part also wins PassMark single-thread, 4043 versus 3942, a smaller 2.5% edge.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX supports 83.2 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory, but Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while AMD supports DDR5 only.

Q: Do both processors have 16 cores?

A: Yes, both have 16 cores. However, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX supports 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports 16 threads. The AMD part has simultaneous multithreading, the Intel part does not.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has an average benchmark score of 69875, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins the PassMark physics test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins PassMark physics with a score of 2880, compared to 2297 for the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX. That is a 20.2% advantage for Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is in PassMark integer math. The AMD part scores 202883, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 83695, a 142.4% difference. This test measures raw arithmetic throughput, and the AMD part’s 32 threads and higher 5.20 GHz boost clock allow it to pull far ahead. Data compression shows a similar pattern: 693741 for AMD versus 327455 for Intel, a 111.9% gap. Random string sorting also favors AMD heavily, 81775 versus 39814, a 105.4% difference. These three tests all reward high thread counts and consistent multi-core execution.

Data encryption is another strong AMD win. The Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 41974, which is 62.4% higher than the Intel part’s 25845. Extended instructions follow with 51029 versus 26901, a 89.7% advantage for AMD. Floating-point math is closer but still favors AMD: 121383 versus 103615, a 17.1% gap. The PassMark multithread score, which aggregates several workloads, shows 53204 for AMD versus 33429 for Intel, a 59.2% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the narrowest AMD win, 29400 versus 28477, just 3.2% apart.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H’s biggest win is Cinebench R23 single-core. The Intel part scores 4020, which is 55% higher than the AMD part’s 1807. This is the largest single-test swing in either direction. PassMark physics also goes to Intel by a significant margin: 2880 versus 2297, a 20.2% advantage. PassMark find prime numbers is a smaller Intel win, 326 versus 273, a 16.3% gap. PassMark single-thread is close, 4043 versus 3942, just 2.5% in favor of Intel. The same result appears in the duplicate PassMark singlethread entry. The Intel part’s single-thread dominance in Cinebench is remarkable, but its multi-thread results are competitive rather than dominant, with the R23 multi-core gap shrinking to just 3.2% despite the AMD part having twice as many threads.

The head-to-head tally shows AMD winning 8 tests and Intel winning 5. The AMD wins are generally larger in magnitude, with several exceeding 100% deltas, while the Intel wins are concentrated in single-thread and physics workloads. The overall average benchmark score reflects this: AMD at 69875 versus Intel at 41263, a difference that places the AMD part in the 94th percentile compared to the Intel part’s 87th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several core specifications. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel base clock is 2.00 GHz with a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD TDP is 55 W, while the Intel TDP is 25 W.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FL1, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, the Intel part does not. Memory support differs as well: the AMD part supports DDR5 only, while the Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both are dual-channel, but the Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth rating of 115.2 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for AMD.

PCIe support also differs. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 610M, Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Neither supports ECC memory. The release dates are distinct, with the AMD part launching in January 2024 and the Intel part in January 2026.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is built on the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Dragon Range. It belongs to the 7000 series and uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The chip contains 13,140 million transistors and has a die size of 2x 71 mm². Its cache hierarchy is 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The large L3 pool is a key advantage for workloads that repeatedly access shared data across many cores.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is built on the Panther Lake architecture under the same codename, Panther Lake. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. Its cache configuration is 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L1 and L2 values are larger on the Intel part, but the total L3 cache is much smaller than the AMD part’s 64 MB.

The process node difference is significant. The Intel part uses a newer 3 nm process compared to AMD’s 5 nm, which helps explain the Intel part’s higher single-core score despite a lower boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. The Intel part also has a lower TDP of 25 W, indicating a design focused on efficiency and sustained single-core performance. The AMD part, with its 55 W TDP and 32 threads, is designed for maximum multi-threaded throughput in larger mobile chassis.

The integrated graphics also reflect different design priorities. The AMD Radeon 610M is a basic iGPU, while the Intel Xe3 Graphics is a newer generation. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the comparison is limited to their existence and naming. The AMD part’s 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide more expansion bandwidth than the Intel part’s 12 lanes, which matters for external GPU or high-speed storage configurations. The Intel part’s support for LPDDR5X memory alongside DDR5 gives system designers more flexibility in memory choice, and its higher memory bandwidth rating of 115.2 GB/s suggests better performance in memory-intensive tasks.

The nearest rivals in the database contextualize both parts. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 9700F, which has an average score of 69996 and a delta of -0.2%, and the Intel Core i7-14700KF at 70163 with a delta of -0.4%. It also sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X at 69515 with a delta of 0.5% and the Intel Core i7-14700K at 69355 with a delta of 0.7%. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 with a delta of 0.1%, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 with a delta of 0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X at 41376 with a delta of -0.3%, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H at 40967 with a delta of 0.7%. These rival positions show that the AMD part competes with desktop-class high-core chips, while the Intel part competes with other efficient mobile and mid-range processors.