AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX delivers an average benchmark score of 69,875, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records 40,518. That places the AMD part at the 94th percentile among all CPUs, versus the 87th percentile for the Intel part.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 29,400 versus 28,221 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The AMD chip leads by 4.2%, a modest margin given its 16-core/32-thread configuration versus Intel’s 16-core/16-thread setup.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H dominates single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3,984 versus 1,807 for the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX, a 54.6% advantage. PassMark single-thread results confirm the trend, with Intel at 4,005 and AMD at 3,942.

Q: What are the biggest performance gaps in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest win for AMD is in PassMark integer math, where it scores 202,883 versus 88,083 for Intel, a 130.3% delta. AMD also leads by 121.7% in data compression (693,741 versus 312,927) and by 114.7% in random string sorting (81,775 versus 38,093). Intel’s biggest wins are in prime number finding (321 versus 273, a 15% lead) and physics (2,857 versus 2,297, a 19.6% lead).

Q: Do both processors support DDR5 memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses LPDDR5X memory, also dual-channel, but with a substantially higher memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H provides just 4 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). That is a major difference for users needing high-bandwidth peripheral connections.

The Verdict

The data splits this comparison cleanly by workload type. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the clear choice for heavily threaded productivity and compute tasks. It wins 8 of the 13 head-to-head benchmarks, including massive margins in integer math (130.3%), data compression (121.7%), and random string sorting (114.7%). Its PassMark multithread score of 53,204 versus 32,956 for Intel (a 61.4% lead) reinforces that positioning. The Ryzen 9 7940HX also holds a 4.2% edge in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the most common all-core rendering test.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, by contrast, is the single-threaded specialist. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3,984 crushes the AMD’s 1,807 by 54.6%. That advantage carries over to PassMark single-thread (4,005 versus 3,942, a 1.6% lead) and shows in physics (2,857 versus 2,297, a 19.6% lead) and prime number finding (321 versus 273, a 15% lead). Users whose daily driver is lightly threaded, latency-sensitive, or frequency-bound will find the Intel part more responsive.

The AMD chip also sits higher in the overall percentile ranking (94th versus 87th), and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X (0.5% ahead) and Intel Core i7-14700K (0.7% behind), suggesting it trades blows with desktop-class parts. The Intel Ultra X7 368H’s nearest rivals are all lower-tier mobile or server parts, with the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H just 0.2% ahead. In raw aggregate performance, the AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX is the stronger processor; the Intel part wins only where single-core speed is the sole criterion.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided results favor AMD overwhelmingly. In PassMark integer math, the Ryzen 9 7940HX posts 202,883 against Intel’s 88,083, a 130.3% delta. Data compression shows a 121.7% gap (693,741 versus 312,927), and random string sorting a 114.7% gap (81,775 versus 38,093). Extended instructions follow the same pattern: AMD scores 51,029 versus 25,669, a 98.8% lead. These are not marginal wins; the AMD chip more than doubles Intel’s output in several integer-heavy workloads, reflecting the benefit of 32 threads versus 16.

Floating-point math is closer but still favors AMD. The Ryzen 9 7940HX scores 121,383 versus 105,681 for Intel, a 14.9% advantage. Data encryption also goes to AMD by 66.4% (41,974 versus 25,228). The multi-threaded PassMark result, 53,204 versus 32,956, gives AMD a 61.4% win, and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a tighter 4.2% margin (29,400 versus 28,221). Even with fewer threads, the Intel part stays competitive in all-core rendering, but it cannot match AMD’s throughput in most parallel tasks.

Intel’s wins are concentrated in single-core and specialized tests. Cinebench R23 single-core is the standout: Intel’s 3,984 beats AMD’s 1,807 by 54.6%. PassMark single-thread is much closer, 4,005 versus 3,942, a 1.6% margin. Physics favors Intel by 19.6% (2,857 versus 2,297), and prime number finding by 15% (321 versus 273). Those results indicate that the Intel architecture delivers superior per-thread performance, but the effect is diluted in multi-threaded scenarios where AMD’s thread count takes over.

The win tally reflects this split: AMD takes 8 benchmarks, Intel takes 5. The average benchmark scores, however, are not close. AMD’s 69,875 versus Intel’s 40,518 represents a 72.5% aggregate gap, driven by the huge margins in integer math, compression, and sorting. The Intel part’s single-core wins, while real, cannot compensate for the breadth of AMD’s multi-threaded dominance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in thread count and power envelope. The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H offers 16 cores and 16 threads. That halves Intel’s thread count, a decisive factor in multi-threaded benchmarks. Clock speeds also differ: AMD runs a 2.40 GHz base and 5.20 GHz boost, while Intel runs a 2.00 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Despite the lower base clock, Intel’s single-core results are far higher, pointing to architectural efficiency rather than raw frequency.

Thermal design power separates the two clearly. The AMD part is rated at 55W TDP, while Intel is rated at 25W TDP. That 30W difference explains why Intel can deliver competitive single-thread performance in a lower-power package, but also why AMD sustains higher multi-thread throughput at the cost of more heat. The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FL1, Intel uses BGA 2540. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier on this data; AMD lists multiplier unlocked as true, Intel lists it as false.

Memory support diverges as well. AMD supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. That is an 84.6% higher memory bandwidth for Intel, which may contribute to its strong single-thread and physics results. Neither chip supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is heavily skewed toward AMD: 28 Gen 5 lanes versus 4 Gen 5 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics also differ, with AMD using Radeon 610M and Intel using Arc B390.

Cache organization is another major split. AMD allocates 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 total. Intel allocates 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared. Intel’s larger per-core L1 and L2 caches support its single-thread advantage, while AMD’s larger L3 pool aids multi-threaded data sharing. The AMD chip is built on a 5 nm TSMC process with 13,140 million transistors across a 2x 71 mm² die. Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry, though transistor count and die size are not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 9 7940HX uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Dragon Range codename, part of the Ryzen 9 generation. It is built on TSMC’s 5 nm node and uses a chiplet design, as indicated by the dual-die layout of 2x 71 mm². That design allows AMD to scale to 16 cores with 32 threads while maintaining a 64 MB L3 cache, a configuration aimed squarely at multi-threaded mobile workstations. The unlocked multiplier on this part also suggests overclocking headroom, though the 55W TDP limits sustained all-core operation in thin chassis.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It is a monolithic mobile design with a 16-core, 16-thread layout. The absence of hyper-threading on this part is a deliberate choice: the per-core L1 cache is 192 KB versus AMD’s 64 KB, and L2 is 2.5 MB per core versus AMD’s 1 MB. That larger private cache hierarchy is the likely driver of Intel’s 54.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and its 19.6% win in physics.

The L3 cache tells the opposite story. AMD’s 64 MB shared L3 is over 3.5 times larger than Intel’s 18 MB shared L3. That capacity advantage, combined with 32 threads, explains why AMD wins so decisively in data compression (121.7%), integer math (130.3%), and random string sorting (114.7%). These workloads benefit from large working sets and many parallel threads, which is exactly what the AMD design provides.

Memory architecture also reflects different priorities. Intel’s LPDDR5X support with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth is nearly double AMD’s 83.2 GB/s, which helps latency-sensitive single-thread tasks. AMD’s DDR5 support is more conventional and pairs with the larger L3 cache to reduce memory pressure in multi-threaded loads. PCIe lane count reinforces the divide: AMD’s 28 Gen 5 lanes support multiple GPUs or NVMe drives, while Intel’s 4 Gen 5 lanes are minimal for mobile use.

Manufacturing differences are stark. TSMC’s 5 nm process for AMD is proven and dense, while Intel’s 3 nm node is newer and more advanced on paper. The transistor count of 13,140 million for AMD is recorded, but Intel’s is not, so a direct count comparison is not possible. The power envelopes (55W versus 25W) suggest Intel’s process efficiency is higher per watt, but AMD’s higher TDP enables its multi-threaded dominance. The release dates also differ: AMD launched on 2024-01-16, Intel on 2026-01-04, giving the AMD part a two-year head start in the market. Both are listed as active production parts.