AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 vs Intel Core 7 250H Comparison

The Intel Core 7 250H and AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 are remarkably close in overall performance, separated by a mere 0.0% in average benchmark score (35728 vs 35719). However, the nature of their performance is entirely different. The Intel part wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, leveraging its higher core count and boost clocks to dominate multi-threaded and legacy single-threaded workloads, while the AMD chip takes a narrow but telling victory in modern single-core efficiency and extended instruction throughput. The data suggests the Intel part is the brute-force workhorse, while the AMD chip is the precision tool for specific, modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 250H is the clear winner for any workload that scales with raw core count and thread count. It boasts 14 cores and 20 threads compared to the AMD's 8 cores and 16 threads, and this advantage shows up across nearly every benchmark. The most significant Intel wins come in physics simulation (PassMark physics, 1824 vs 1318, a 38.4% lead) and legacy multi-core rendering (Cinebench R15 multi-core, 3147 vs 2336.5, a 34.7% lead). For tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, or heavy multitasking, the Intel chip's extra six cores provide a substantial, measurable advantage.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 wins only two tests, but they are strategically important. It takes the single-core Cinebench R23 crown (1954 vs 1931, a -1.2% delta for Intel), indicating superior per-core efficiency in that modern test. More decisively, it wins PassMark extended instructions (19955 vs 17318, a -13.2% delta for Intel), a metric that reflects performance on newer, specialized instruction sets like AVX-512. This points to the AMD chip being better suited for specific scientific computing, cryptography, or AI-adjacent workloads that utilize these instructions. It also has a lower TDP (28W vs 45W), suggesting it can achieve these results in a more power-efficient envelope, though the data does not include power draw measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Intel Core 7 250H uses the Raptor Lake-H architecture (specifically the Raptor Lake Refresh generation), manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. It features a hybrid design with 14 cores and 20 threads, and its cache hierarchy is notable: 2 MB of L2 per core and a substantial 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, and its PCIe interface is Gen 5 with 8 lanes available from the CPU.

In contrast, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 uses the Zen 5 architecture (codenamed Krackan Point), built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It is a more compact design with 8 cores and 16 threads, and a die size of 195 mm². Its cache structure is different: 1 MB of L2 per core and a much smaller 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, has a higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and offers 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel chip. The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units, while AMD uses the Radeon 860M.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H is significantly faster. It wins the Cinebench R15 multi-core test by 34.7% (3147 vs 2336.5) and the Cinebench R23 multi-core test by 16% (16561 vs 14278.5). Its 14 cores versus the AMD's 8 cores provide a clear advantage in parallel tasks.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 win any benchmarks at all?

A: Yes, it wins two of the 15 head-to-head tests. It takes the Cinebench R23 single-core test with a score of 1954 versus Intel's 1931, and it dominates the PassMark extended instructions test with 19955 versus Intel's 17318, a 13.2% margin.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are virtually identical. The Intel Core 7 250H has an average benchmark score of 35728, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 scores 35719. The delta between them is 0.0%, placing them in the same performance tier. Both have a percentile ranking of 85 among all CPUs.

Q: What are the key differences in memory support?

A: The Intel Core 7 250H supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The AMD chip also has a specified memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, a figure not provided for the Intel part.

Q: Is the AMD processor more power-efficient?

A: The data shows the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 has a TDP of 28W, which is lower than the Intel Core 7 250H's 45W TDP. This suggests the AMD chip is designed for a lower power envelope, but the benchmark data does not include actual power consumption measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core 7 250H | AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-H | Krackan Point |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | Not specified | 195 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 8 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | False | True |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU | Radeon 860M |

| Release Date | 2024-12-17 | 2025-01-05 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 7 250H's largest victory is in PassMark physics, where it scores 1824 against the AMD's 1318, a massive 38.4% advantage. This test is highly dependent on core count and threading, and the Intel part's 14 cores deliver a decisive performance win. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 3147 versus 2336.5, a 34.7% lead that demonstrates its strength in older, heavily threaded rendering applications.

The Intel part continues its dominance across other multi-threaded tests. In PassMark find prime numbers, it leads by 30.9% (106 vs 81). PassMark floating point math shows a 26.1% advantage (65094 vs 51639), and data encryption is 25.9% faster (18206 vs 14462). Even in integer math, a test that often favors different architectures, the Intel chip leads by 16.8% (99100 vs 84868). The pattern is consistent: more cores translate to more throughput.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350's wins are narrower but significant. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1954 against Intel's 1931, a 1.2% improvement. This is a modern benchmark, and the Zen 5 architecture's per-core efficiency shines here. The AMD chip's other win is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 19955 versus Intel's 17318, a 13.2% margin. This test often favors implementations of newer instruction sets, suggesting the AMD chip is better equipped for specific vectorized workloads.

In the remaining tests, the Intel part wins by smaller margins. It leads in PassMark multithread by 12.7% (27030 vs 23994), random string sorting by 9.9% (34136 vs 31071), data compression by 7.6% (303269 vs 281834), and single-thread by 7.1% (4148 vs 3872). The only test where the Intel part loses in single-core performance is Cinebench R23, which highlights the AMD chip's efficiency at lower power levels.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. For users who prioritize raw multi-threaded performance, the Intel Core 7 250H is the unambiguous choice. Its 34.7% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 38.4% lead in PassMark physics are decisive for workloads like 3D rendering, video editing, and heavy multitasking. Its higher 45W TDP and 14 cores provide the computational muscle that the AMD chip cannot match in these areas, despite the AMD part's lower 28W TDP.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 350, however, is not without its merits. Its victory in PassMark extended instructions by 13.2% makes it the better option for users running specialized software that leverages these instructions, such as certain cryptographic or AI workloads. Its win in Cinebench R23 single-core also suggests better per-core efficiency in modern, lightly-threaded applications. Given its lower TDP and support for ECC memory, it is positioned as a more efficient, specialized alternative. The choice rests on workload: brute-force parallelism points to Intel, while specific instruction efficiency and lower power draw point to AMD.