AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, and its victories cluster in heavily threaded, data-intensive, or multi-core rendering tasks. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H takes only two wins, both in specific single-threaded or physics-oriented PassMark subtests.

For multi-core rendering, the AMD part is dominant. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 37159 against 18747 for the Intel, a 98.2% advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar pattern: 5905 versus 3027, a 95.1% lead. These are the largest gaps in the entire comparison outside of integer math and data compression, and they indicate that the AMD processor is roughly twice as fast in threaded rendering workloads.

The AMD chip also wins every PassMark subtest that stresses throughput or parallel execution. Data compression shows 731998 versus 332508, a 120.1% margin. Extended instructions score 57946 versus 27274, a 112.5% difference. Integer math delivers the single biggest win at 155.7%, with 212598 against 83147. Multithread performance sits at 56171 versus 33802, a 66.2% lead. Random string sorting shows 77890 versus 40357, a 93% advantage. Floating point math is closer but still firmly AMD: 136682 versus 103842, a 31.6% margin. Data encryption completes the AMD sweep of the PassMark suite with 37330 versus 26046, a 43.3% edge.

Single-core performance also favors AMD, though by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2174 versus 2080, a 4.5% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 336 versus 301.5, an 11.4% edge. PassMark single-thread scores are 4393 versus 4124, a 6.5% advantage. These are meaningful but not overwhelming, indicating the Intel part is competitive in lightly threaded tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins exactly two subtests. PassMark find prime numbers shows 337 versus 287, a 14.8% Intel advantage. PassMark physics shows 3021 versus 2720, a 10% lead. These are the only places where the Intel chip outperforms the AMD part, and both are narrow compared to the AMD margins elsewhere.

In aggregate, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX has an average benchmark score of 91199, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967, in the 87th percentile. The nearest rivals for the AMD part are the Intel Xeon 654 (0.5% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 (0.7% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus and Intel Xeon 6520P, both 2.8% ahead. The Intel part's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (0.6% behind), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (0.6% behind), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (0.6% ahead), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (0.7% ahead).

The Verdict

The data identifies two distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX is the choice for anyone running multi-core rendering, heavy computation, compression, encryption, or parallel workloads. Its 98.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 155.7% lead in integer math make the decision straightforward for those workloads.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is not without merit. Its wins in prime number finding and physics suggest it handles certain algorithmic or physics-simulation tasks with better efficiency. But those two wins are the only bright spots, and they are outweighed by the AMD part's performance across the rest of the suite.

The overall average benchmark score tells the same story: 91199 for AMD versus 40967 for Intel. That is more than a 2x gap in aggregate performance. The percentile placement reinforces it, with AMD at 96th percentile versus Intel at 87th.

The Intel part does have a significantly lower TDP of 25 watts compared to 55 watts for the AMD chip. That difference may matter for system design or thermal constraints, but from a pure performance standpoint, the recorded data shows the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX ahead in nearly every measurable category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest AMD win is in PassMark integer math. The Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 212598 against 83147 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, a 155.7% difference. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison and indicates a massive throughput advantage in integer-heavy workloads.

Data compression is the second-largest gap. The AMD chip scores 731998 against 332508, a 120.1% lead. This workload is common in file archiving, database operations, and some content pipelines, so the margin has practical relevance.

Extended instructions follow at 112.5% ahead, with 57946 versus 27274. This subtest measures performance on specialized instruction sets, and the AMD part more than doubles the Intel score.

Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 37159 versus 18747, a 98.2% lead. This is the headline rendering benchmark, and the near-doubling of the score confirms the AMD part's strength in threaded rendering.

Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 5905 versus 3027, a 95.1% margin. The consistency across Cinebench versions reinforces the multi-core conclusion.

Random string sorting shows 77890 versus 40357, a 93% lead. PassMark multithread shows 56171 versus 33802, a 66.2% edge. Data encryption shows 37330 versus 26046, a 43.3% advantage. Floating point math shows 136682 versus 103842, a 31.6% lead.

Single-core results are closer. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 336 versus 301.5, an 11.4% lead. PassMark single-thread shows 4393 versus 4124, a 6.5% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the smallest AMD win at 4.5%, with 2174 versus 2080.

The Intel part wins PassMark find prime numbers by 14.8% (337 versus 287) and PassMark physics by 10% (3021 versus 2720). Both are the only defeats for the AMD chip in the entire head-to-head set.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 37159, which is 98.2% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 18747.

Q: Are there any workloads where the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins?

A: Yes, the Intel part wins PassMark find prime numbers with 337 versus 287 (14.8% ahead) and PassMark physics with 3021 versus 2720 (10% ahead).

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The AMD part leads in all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 4.5% lead (2174 versus 2080), Cinebench R15 single-core shows 11.4% (336 versus 301.5), and PassMark single-thread shows 6.5% (4393 versus 4124).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX has an average benchmark score of 91199, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967. The AMD part ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, and the Intel part ranks in the 87th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H supports 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX supports 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth figure in the recorded specifications.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX has 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 threads. Both have 16 cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Fire Range codename. It is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC and contains 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and uses the Panther Lake codename. It is built on a 3 nm process by Intel. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size in the database.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has a much larger L3 cache, while the Intel part has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD chip uses DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip uses LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports higher memory bandwidth despite its lower overall performance.

PCIe lanes also differ. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX offers Gen 5 with 28 CPU-only lanes. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H offers Gen 5 with 4 CPU-only lanes. This is a significant difference for systems that need many direct connections to storage or peripherals.

ECC memory support is present on the AMD chip but not on the Intel chip. The AMD part has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part is locked. Integrated graphics differ: the AMD chip uses Radeon 610M, while the Intel chip uses Arc B390. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket FL1, and the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 2540.

Production status is Active for both. Release dates differ, with the AMD chip released on 2025-01-05 and the Intel chip on 2026-01-04. Part numbers are 100-000001028 for AMD and SA4RAQ9ET for Intel.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical in one respect: both have 16 cores. Threads differ, with the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX offering 32 threads and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H offering 16 threads.

Clock speeds favor AMD. The base clock is 2.50 GHz for the AMD chip versus 1.90 GHz for the Intel chip. Boost clock is 5.40 GHz for AMD versus 4.80 GHz for Intel.

TDP differs by more than half. The AMD chip has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel chip has a TDP of 25 watts.

Process node favors Intel at 3 nm, while AMD uses 4 nm. Foundry also differs: AMD uses TSMC, Intel uses Intel.

Memory type differs: DDR5 for AMD, LPDDR5X for Intel. Memory bandwidth favors Intel at 153.6 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on AMD and absent on Intel.

PCIe lane count favors AMD heavily: 28 CPU-only lanes versus 4 CPU-only lanes, both Gen 5.

Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 610M on AMD, Arc B390 on Intel.

The multiplier is unlocked on AMD and locked on Intel. Sockets differ: AMD Socket FL1 versus Intel BGA 2540. The AMD chip has a release date of 2025-01-05, and the Intel chip has a release date of 2026-01-04. The AMD part number is 100-000001028, and the Intel part number is SA4RAQ9ET.