AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 vs AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 dominates the AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 in nearly every measured workload. Across 15 head-to-head benchmark entries, the Ryzen AI 7 350 takes 13 wins, while the Ryzen AI 7 345 manages only 2 wins. The margin is not uniform, and the single-thread results tell a more nuanced story than the multi-thread ones.

Starting with multi-core rendering, the Ryzen AI 7 350 posts 2477 in Cinebench R15 multicore against 1712 for the 345, a 30.9% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 350 scores 16014.5 versus 11461, a 28.4% lead. These are substantial gaps, indicating that the 350's additional two cores and four threads translate into a measurable rendering advantage. The 345's 6 cores and 12 threads are simply outpaced in heavily threaded workloads.

Single-core results narrow the gap considerably. In Cinebench R15 singlecore, the 350 scores 294 versus 271, a 7.8% lead. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the 350 scores 1958 versus 1818, a 7.2% advantage. These margins are much smaller than the multi-core deltas, suggesting that per-core performance is closer between the two chips. The boost clock difference of 4.60 GHz on the 345 versus 5.00 GHz on the 350 likely contributes to this, but the IPC advantage of the 350's Zen 5 architecture appears modest in single-threaded tasks.

The Passmark suite reveals a consistent pattern of 20-26% advantages for the 350 across most tests. Integer math shows 85651 for the 350 versus 63475 for the 345, a 25.9% gap. Floating point math shows 53230 versus 42621, a 19.9% lead. Data compression shows 304089 versus 237484, a 21.9% margin. Data encryption shows 15244 versus 11814, a 22.5% gap. Extended instructions show 21678 versus 17003, a 21.6% advantage. Find prime numbers shows 80 versus 62, a 22.5% lead. Random string sorting shows 33266 versus 25435, a 23.5% margin. The multithread score shows 24935 versus 19927, a 20.1% edge. Physics shows 1349 versus 1089, a 19.3% lead.

The only two wins for the 345 come from Passmark single-thread tests. Both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread entries record 3875 for the 345 versus 3834 for the 350, a slim 1.1% advantage. This is a curious result, given that the 350 has a higher boost clock. The data suggests that the 345's per-core performance in this specific benchmark is slightly ahead, possibly due to different boost behavior or cache configuration under single-threaded loads. The margin is small enough that it may not translate into real-world perceptible differences, but it is a genuine win in the recorded results.

Overall, the weighted average benchmark scores confirm the hierarchy. The 345 sits at 29461, while the 350 reaches 34222. The percentile rankings also differ, with the 345 at the 81st percentile versus the 350 at the 84th percentile against all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the 345 include the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X at 29447 (0% delta), the AMD EPYC 9654 at 29409 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core i5-13500HX at 29270 (0.7% delta), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE at 29656 (-0.7% delta). For the 350, the nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4244P at 34220 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X at 34260 (-0.1% delta), the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34333 (-0.3% delta), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H at 34083 (0.4% delta). These comparisons place the 350 in a higher performance tier, roughly 16% above the 345 on average.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 is the faster processor in nearly every category. It wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, with multi-core advantages ranging from 19.3% to 30.9% depending on the workload. The 350's 8 cores and 16 threads, paired with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, deliver a consistent and substantial performance uplift over the 345's 6 cores, 12 threads, and 4.60 GHz boost clock.

The 345's only victory is a narrow 1.1% lead in Passmark single-thread tests. This single win does little to offset the 350's dominance elsewhere. For users prioritizing multi-threaded workloads, such as video rendering, data compression, or scientific computing, the 350 is the clear choice. The data shows a 28.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore and a 25.9% lead in integer math, which are meaningful margins for productivity tasks.

The 350 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 84 versus 81, and its average benchmark score of 34222 is roughly 16% above the 345's 29461. The nearest rivals for the 350, including the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and Intel Core i5-13450HX, are desktop-class processors with higher power envelopes, yet the 350 competes with them at a 28 W TDP. For the 345, its nearest rivals are a mix of desktop and mobile chips, and its performance sits close to the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X.

The verdict from the data is straightforward: the 350 is the superior processor. The 345 may appeal to those who need slightly better single-threaded Passmark performance, but that advantage is minimal and limited to one benchmark family. The 350's multi-core and overall average score advantages are far more significant for general and professional use.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split based on benchmark wins is heavily skewed. The 350 wins in all multi-threaded and most single-threaded tests, while the 345 wins only in the Passmark single-thread tests.

The 350's wins span rendering, math, compression, encryption, and sorting. Cinebench R15 and R23 multicore tests show the 350 ahead by 30.9% and 28.4%, respectively. These tests are representative of 3D rendering and video encoding workloads, where the extra cores and threads provide a clear advantage. Passmark integer math, floating point math, and extended instructions tests show 25.9%, 19.9%, and 21.6% leads, respectively, which map to general computation and scientific workloads. Data compression and encryption tests show 21.9% and 22.5% leads, relevant for file archiving and secure data handling. Random string sorting shows a 23.5% lead, and physics simulation shows a 19.3% lead.

The 345's wins are confined to Passmark single-thread and singlethread tests, where it scores 3875 versus 3834. This 1.1% lead suggests that in lightweight, single-threaded applications, the 345 may hold a marginal edge. However, the Cinebench single-core tests tell the opposite story, with the 350 leading by 7.8% and 7.2%. The discrepancy between Passmark and Cinebench single-thread results is notable; the 345's advantage is specific to one benchmark methodology, not a general single-thread superiority.

For use-case selection, the data supports the 350 for any workload that scales with core count. This includes professional rendering, compilation, data analysis, and multi-tasking. The 345's niche is narrow: applications that rely on the specific Passmark single-thread test may see a tiny benefit, but this is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world use.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 scores 16014.5 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 28.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 345's 11461.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 win any benchmark against the 350?

A: Yes, the 345 wins the Passmark single-thread and singlethread tests with a score of 3875, which is 1.1% higher than the 350's 3834.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has an average benchmark score of 29461, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 has an average score of 34222.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 350 ranks at the 84th percentile, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 ranks at the 81st percentile.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the Krackan Point family and use the Ryzen AI 300 generation architecture based on Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. They share the same 4 nm TSMC process node and the same AMD Socket FP8. The 350 explicitly lists its architecture as Zen 5, while the 345 does not specify a separate architecture field, but the generation string confirms the same Zen 5 / Zen 5c mix.

The core counts differ: the 345 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 350 has 8 cores and 16 threads. This two-core, four-thread difference is the primary driver of the multi-core performance gap. The L3 cache also differs, with the 345 offering 4 MB and the 350 offering 8 MB. The L1 and L2 caches are identical at 80 KB per core and 1 MB per core, respectively.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the 345 uses a Radeon 840M, while the 350 uses a Radeon 860M. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The PCIe lane counts differ, with the 345 offering Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only) and the 350 offering Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The 350's die size is listed at 195 mm², while the 345 does not have a listed die size.

Both processors have a TDP of 28 W, use the same socket, and are marked as Active production. Neither supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ slightly, with the 350 released on 2025-01-05 and the 345 on 2025-01-14.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two processors differ are limited but impactful. The core count is 6 for the 345 versus 8 for the 350, with corresponding thread counts of 12 versus 16. The boost clock is 4.60 GHz for the 345 versus 5.00 GHz for the 350. The L3 cache is 4 MB for the 345 versus 8 MB for the 350.

The integrated graphics are different: Radeon 840M for the 345 and Radeon 860M for the 350. The PCIe configuration differs, with 14 lanes for the 345 versus 16 lanes for the 350, both at Gen 4. The die size is listed as 195 mm² for the 350, while the 345 has no listed value. The release date differs by nine days, with the 350 launching first on 2025-01-05 and the 345 on 2025-01-14.

The base clock is identical at 2.00 GHz, as are the TDP at 28 W, the socket (AMD Socket FP8), the process node (4 nm), the foundry (TSMC), the memory support (DDR5, LPDDR5X), the memory bus (dual-channel), the memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s), and the ECC support (false). Both are marked as Active production, have no unlocked multiplier, and have no launch MSRP recorded.