AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 vs Intel Core 5 221E Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 and the Intel Core 5 221E occupy different corners of the processor market, and the benchmark data recorded in the database reflects that split clearly. The AMD part is a mobile-focused, low-power chip built for thin laptops, while the Intel part is a desktop-oriented processor with a higher thermal envelope and more physical cores. Across every single benchmark recorded in the database, the Intel Core 5 221E posts the higher score. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 does not win a single head-to-head test among the fifteen comparisons logged. However, the magnitude of those losses varies dramatically by workload, and the architecture differences explain why.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the Intel Core 5 221E across all fifteen head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 records zero wins, while the Intel part takes all fifteen. That does not mean the AMD chip is without merit; it means its strengths lie outside the measured workloads or in contexts the benchmarks do not capture, such as power efficiency in a mobile chassis.

The Intel Core 5 221E wins most decisively in heavily multithreaded, compute-intensive tasks. Cinebench R23 multicore shows the Intel part scoring 25933 against the AMD part’s 13794, a gap of 46.8 percent. PassMark floating point math follows a similar pattern, with the Intel part at 79028 versus 46996, a 40.5 percent advantage. Integer math also favors Intel heavily, 117813 to 77414, a 34.3 percent lead. These are workloads that scale with core count and sustained power delivery, both of which favor the Intel desktop part.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 comes closest in single-threaded and lightly threaded tests. PassMark single thread shows the Intel part at 4147 versus 3862 for AMD, a gap of only 6.9 percent. PassMark extended instructions is nearly a tie, with Intel at 18216 and AMD at 18029, a 1 percent difference. These results indicate that the AMD Zen 5 architecture has strong per-core efficiency, even if the Intel chip still leads on raw score.

For data compression and encryption, the Intel part wins by moderate margins. Data compression shows Intel at 324285 versus 256603, a 20.9 percent lead. Data encryption shows Intel at 19205 versus 13264, a 30.9 percent lead. Random string sorting favors Intel by 24.7 percent, 37686 to 28390. These are memory-latency-sensitive and cache-sensitive workloads, and the Intel part’s larger L3 cache appears to help.

The largest single gap in the entire dataset appears in PassMark find prime numbers. The Intel Core 5 221E scores 173, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 scores 76, a 56.1 percent deficit for AMD. This is an odd workload that stresses integer division and branch prediction, and the Intel part dominates it completely. PassMark physics also shows a large gap, 2230 to 1257, a 43.6 percent difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Point codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The thermal design power is 28 watts, which classifies it as a low-power mobile part. It uses the AMD Socket FP8 and belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 300 generation, which incorporates both Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The die size is 233 mm².

The Intel Core 5 221E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. It has 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The thermal design power is 65 watts, more than double the AMD part. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop segment. The die size is 257 mm². Intel lists the architecture field as null in the database, but the generation is recorded as Core 5 (Bartlett Lake).

Cache configuration differs significantly between the two. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of L3 total. The Intel part also has 80 KB of L1 per core but doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core and provides 24 MB of shared L3. That larger L3 cache likely contributes to the Intel part’s advantages in compression and sorting workloads, where larger working sets can stay resident on-chip.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, which suits its mobile positioning. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, giving desktop builders flexibility with existing memory platforms. Both parts use a dual-channel memory bus and show the same memory bandwidth figure of 89.6 GB/s in the database. Both also support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU, which offers higher bandwidth for storage and graphics expansion in a desktop context. Integrated graphics differ as well, with the AMD part using the Radeon 880M and the Intel part using UHD Graphics 730.

The process node gap is notable. The AMD part is built on 4 nm at TSMC, while the Intel part uses 10 nm at Intel. That explains how the AMD chip achieves a 28-watt TDP with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, while the Intel chip needs 65 watts to reach 5.20 GHz. The AMD part’s smaller process node enables higher frequency per watt, but the Intel part compensates with more physical cores and a higher power budget.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows the starkest differences. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel Core 5 221E scores 25933, which is 46.8 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360’s 13794. That is the largest multicore gap in the dataset, and it reflects the 14-core versus 8-core count difference. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a similar percentage gap, 3661 versus 1958, a 46.5 percent lead for Intel. This is surprising because single-core tests usually favor higher boost clocks, and the AMD part boosts to 5.00 GHz versus 5.20 GHz for Intel. The 0.2 GHz difference alone does not explain a 46.5 percent gap, which suggests the Intel part sustains its boost more effectively under the 65-watt power budget.

Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern. Multicore shows Intel at 2613 versus 2023, a 22.6 percent lead. Singlecore shows Intel at 368 versus 271, a 26.4 percent lead. The R15 gaps are smaller than the R23 gaps, which may reflect the shorter runtime of R15 and the AMD part’s ability to maintain boost clocks over brief workloads.

PassMark integer math gives Intel a 34.3 percent lead, 117813 to 77414. Floating point math shows a 40.5 percent lead, 79028 to 46996. These are pure compute throughput tests, and the Intel part’s additional cores and higher power envelope deliver proportionally higher scores. The AMD part’s 8 cores simply cannot match the 14-core Intel part in throughput-bound tests.

PassMark multithread shows Intel at 30510 versus 22125, a 27.5 percent lead. This is a more moderate gap than Cinebench R23, which suggests the PassMark multithread workload does not scale as perfectly with core count. PassMark physics shows a 43.6 percent lead for Intel, 2230 to 1257, indicating strong performance in physics simulation tasks.

The closest benchmark in the entire dataset is PassMark extended instructions, where Intel scores 18216 and AMD scores 18029, a 1 percent difference. This test likely uses SIMD or specialized instruction sets where both architectures have similar capabilities. The second closest is PassMark single thread, where Intel leads by only 6.9 percent, 4147 to 3862. This indicates that the AMD Zen 5 core has competitive single-thread performance, even though it loses to the Intel Raptor Cove-class cores in this specific test.

PassMark data encryption shows Intel at 19205 versus 13264, a 30.9 percent lead. Data compression shows Intel at 324285 versus 256603, a 20.9 percent lead. Random string sorting shows Intel at 37686 versus 28390, a 24.7 percent lead. These three tests all involve memory access patterns and cache efficiency, and the Intel part’s 24 MB L3 cache likely provides an edge.

PassMark find prime numbers produces the most lopsided result, with Intel at 173 and AMD at 76, a 56.1 percent lead. This workload is highly sensitive to branch prediction and integer division latency, and the Intel architecture clearly handles it far better. The AMD part’s score of 76 is the lowest single score in either processor’s benchmark set.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of roles. The Intel Core 5 221E is the stronger processor for raw compute throughput across every measured workload in the database. It wins all fifteen head-to-head comparisons, with particularly large advantages in multicore rendering, floating point math, prime number finding, and physics simulation. Its 14 cores, 20 threads, 24 MB L3 cache, and 65-watt power budget deliver scores that place it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 40144. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, which trails by only 0.2 percent, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, which also trails by 0.2 percent.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 is the weaker processor in absolute performance, but it operates in a different context. It is a mobile part with a 28-watt TDP, designed for laptops where power consumption and thermals matter more than raw throughput. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 8 MB L3 cache produce an average benchmark score of 32662, placing it in the 83rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H, which leads by only 0.1 percent, and the Intel Core i5-14600T, which also leads by 0.1 percent. The AMD part’s closest call in the head-to-head data is the 1 percent gap in extended instructions, which shows that its Zen 5 architecture can match Intel on specialized workloads.

Who should pick which? A desktop user with a Socket 1700 motherboard, access to a 65-watt cooling solution, and workloads that scale with core count should consider the Intel Core 5 221E. Its launch MSRP is $232, and it delivers 46.8 percent higher Cinebench R23 multicore scores than the AMD part. A mobile user who needs a processor that fits in a thin laptop, runs on 28 watts, and still provides competitive single-thread performance should consider the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. The data shows that the Intel part is the faster processor in every measured test, but the AMD part is the only one of the two designed for portable systems.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E has 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core 5 221E scores 173 versus 76 for the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360, a 56.1 percent difference.

Q: Which benchmark shows the smallest gap between the two?

A: PassMark extended instructions shows the smallest gap, with the Intel Core 5 221E at 18216 and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 at 18029, a 1 percent difference.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 has a thermal design power of 28 watts. The Intel Core 5 221E has a thermal design power of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 5 221E scores 25933, which is 46.8 percent higher than the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360’s 13794.