AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G vs Intel Core 7 160UL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous split: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G wins every single recorded test in the head-to-head comparison, taking all 11 wins with zero victories for the Intel Core 7 160UL. This is not a case of one chip edging ahead in certain workloads while ceding others; rather, the AMD part dominates across the entire PassMark suite, from data compression to prime number finding.

The magnitude of the AMD advantage varies considerably by workload type. In compute-heavy integer and floating-point math, the Ryzen AI 5 440G leads by margins between 50% and 78.1%. The gap grows substantially in memory-intensive and vectorized tasks: extended instructions show a 254% delta, data compression a 168.7% delta, and random string sorting a 162.7% delta. These are not marginal wins; they indicate a fundamentally different performance class.

The narrowest AMD advantage appears in single-threaded performance, where the Ryzen AI 5 440G scores 4060 against 3391 for the Intel Core 7 160UL, a 19.7% lead. This still represents a clear victory, but it is the only test where the Intel part comes within 20% of its rival. The multithreaded result tells a different story: the AMD chip scores 23487 versus 11043, a 112.7% advantage, meaning it more than doubles the Intel part's throughput in heavily parallel work.

For workloads that benefit from data compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G is decisively faster. For users whose primary concern is single-thread responsiveness, the AMD part still wins, but the margin narrows to roughly one-fifth. There is no workload category in the recorded data where the Intel Core 7 160UL takes the lead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G uses the Gorgon Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI 400 generation built on a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, part of the Core 7 generation.

Manufacturing processes differ substantially. The AMD chip is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel chip uses a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundries. This process gap helps explain the performance disparity, as the smaller geometry allows for denser, more efficient transistor layouts.

Core configurations also differ. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G packs 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads. Despite having four fewer physical cores, the AMD part still manages to outperform the Intel chip in every multi-threaded test, which points to a significant per-core efficiency advantage. The Intel chip's extra cores do not translate into higher throughput in the recorded benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies show both similarities and differences. Both processors share 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: the AMD chip has 1 MB per core, while the Intel chip has 1.25 MB per core. The L3 cache is where the gap widens: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G has 8 MB of L3, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 12 MB shared. Despite having less L3 cache, the AMD part still wins decisively in memory-sensitive workloads like random string sorting and data compression.

Clock speeds favor the Intel chip on paper. The Intel Core 7 160UL boosts to 5.20 GHz with a base clock of 1.80 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G boosts to 4.80 GHz with a base clock of 2.00 GHz. The higher boost clock does not help Intel overcome the architectural and process advantages of the AMD design.

Power envelopes are dramatically different. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15 watts. This explains part of the performance gap: the AMD part consumes more power to deliver higher throughput. The Intel chip operates in a much lower power class, which affects its suitability for thermally constrained systems.

Platform support diverges as well. The AMD chip uses AMD Socket AM5 with 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU and supports DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1700 with 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, though the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not. Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part uses Radeon 840M, the Intel part uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the comparison is the extended instructions test, where the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G scores 20648 against 5832 for the Intel Core 7 160UL. This 254% delta is the largest of any recorded benchmark and indicates that the AMD architecture handles vectorized and specialized instruction sets far more efficiently.

Data compression shows a similar pattern. The AMD chip scores 292735, while the Intel chip manages 108953, a 168.7% advantage. Random string sorting follows at 162.7% delta, with scores of 31106 versus 11843. These three tests form a cluster where the AMD part achieves more than two and a half times the Intel part's output in some cases.

The multithreaded benchmark delivers a 112.7% delta, with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G scoring 23487 against 11043. This result is particularly telling because the Intel chip has 10 cores to the AMD chip's 6, yet the AMD part more than doubles the Intel part's score. The data indicates that the AMD chip's per-core throughput, combined with its process advantage, overwhelms the Intel chip's core count.

Data encryption shows a 90.1% advantage for AMD, with scores of 13585 versus 7146. Prime number finding delivers an 80% delta, with 90 versus 50. Floating-point math shows a 78.1% advantage (45711 versus 25670), while physics simulation shows a 62.3% delta (1329 versus 819). Integer math rounds out the larger-margin results at 50% (71251 versus 47515).

The single-threaded test is the only benchmark where the Intel chip comes close. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G scores 4060, and the Intel Core 7 160UL scores 3391, a 19.7% delta. Even here, the AMD part is clearly ahead, but the margin is roughly one-fifth instead of multiples. The higher boost clock of the Intel chip, 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, does not close the gap.

Across all 11 head-to-head benchmarks, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G wins every test. The average benchmark score for the AMD part is 46187, while the Intel part averages 14232. The AMD chip sits at the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel chip sits at the 69th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G has 6 cores. Both processors have 12 threads.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160UL win any benchmark against the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G wins all 11 benchmarks. The Intel chip has zero wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The extended instructions test shows the largest delta at 254%, with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G scoring 20648 against 5832 for the Intel Core 7 160UL.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has a TDP of 15 watts. The Intel chip operates in a much lower power class.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160UL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G ranks at the 89th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 7 160UL ranks at the 69th percentile.

The Verdict

The recorded data leads to a straightforward conclusion for raw performance: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G is the superior processor in every measured workload. Its 11-0 head-to-head sweep, combined with an average benchmark score of 46187 versus 14232 for the Intel Core 7 160UL, establishes a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD chip ranks at the 89th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel chip ranks at the 69th percentile.

The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G is the choice for users who prioritize computing throughput. It delivers more than double the multithreaded performance of the Intel chip, with scores of 23487 versus 11043. It also leads in single-threaded work, though by a narrower 19.7% margin. Workloads involving data compression, encryption, extended instructions, or heavy math all favor the AMD part by wide margins.

The Intel Core 7 160UL is the choice for users who require a very low power envelope. Its 15-watt TDP is substantially lower than the AMD chip's 65-watt TDP. This makes it suitable for systems where thermal output and energy consumption are the primary constraints, even at the cost of significant performance. The Intel chip also offers DDR4 and DDR5 memory support, which may provide platform flexibility for existing systems.

The data does not support selecting the Intel chip for performance reasons. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at a 0.3% lower average score and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at a 0.6% higher average score, placing it in a much lower performance tier. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G, by contrast, sits alongside the Intel Core i9-13900HX and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 in its nearest rival group, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.3% respectively.

Users who need ECC memory support should select the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G, as the Intel Core 7 160UL does not offer this feature. Users who need a higher boost clock on paper may note the Intel chip's 5.20 GHz maximum, but the measured single-thread performance still favors AMD by 19.7%. The architectural and process advantages of the 4 nm TSMC fabrication over the 10 nm Intel process manifest clearly in the benchmark results.

For desktop systems where performance matters and power consumption is secondary, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G is the clear choice. For passively cooled or battery-sensitive designs where a 15-watt envelope is mandatory, the Intel Core 7 160UL fills that role, but with the understanding that its performance is substantially lower across every recorded metric.