AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two mobile processors clearly by workload type. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 wins 12 of the 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 360 takes 3. The AMD part delivers a 47.2% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2023 vs 1374) and a 40.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core (271 vs 193). For users running heavily threaded applications, compression workloads, or integer math, the AMD chip is the stronger choice. The Intel Core 7 360, however, wins in PassMark single-thread performance (4274 vs 3862, a 9.6% margin) and in the prime number search test (120 vs 76, a 36.7% margin). The AMD processor sits at the 83rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 72nd percentile for Intel. The average benchmark score for AMD is 32662, compared to 18374 for Intel, a substantial gap. The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $426.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 suits workloads that stress all cores: rendering, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. The Intel Core 7 360 suits tasks that favor raw single-thread responsiveness and specific integer prime-search algorithms. The data does not support a single universal recommendation; the choice depends on whether the software scales across cores or relies on per-thread speed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core by 47.2% (2023 vs 1374) and in Cinebench R23 multi-core by 1.2% (13794 vs 13634). It also leads PassMark multi-thread by 42.3% (22125 vs 15544).

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 wins the PassMark single-thread test with 4274 against 3862, a 9.6% advantage. However, the AMD chip wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 40.4% (271 vs 193) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 1.8% (1958 vs 1924).

Q: How do the two processors compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 360 uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has the larger cache?

A: The AMD part has 8 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel part has 6 MB shared L3. The Intel part has a larger per-core L1 (192 KB per core vs 80 KB per core) and L2 (2.5 MB per core vs 1 MB per core).

Q: What is the process node for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 360 is built on a 3 nm process at Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI PRO 300 generation. It combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename from the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm Intel process. The AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel chip has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning the AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading and the Intel part does not.

The cache hierarchies differ in structure. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. The Intel per-core cache is larger, but the AMD L3 pool is larger by 2 MB.

The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 880M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD socket is AMD Socket FP8; the Intel socket is Intel BGA 1516. PCIe support differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), Intel offers Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Memory support is similar in type (DDR5 and LPDDR5X), but AMD runs dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while Intel runs single-channel with 59.7 GB/s and no ECC.

The AMD processor has a 28 W TDP and a 233 mm² die size. The Intel processor has a 15 W TDP and no recorded die size. The AMD base clock is 2.00 GHz with a 5.00 GHz boost; the Intel base clock is 1.50 GHz with a 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD release date is January 2025, while the Intel release date is April 2026. Both have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: AMD has 8 cores and 16 threads; Intel has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ: AMD at 2.00 GHz, Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks differ: AMD at 5.00 GHz, Intel at 4.80 GHz. TDP differs: AMD at 28 W, Intel at 15 W. The sockets differ: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel BGA 1516.

The process node differs: AMD at 4 nm from TSMC, Intel at 3 nm from Intel. The die size is recorded only for AMD at 233 mm². The cache layout differs: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB L3; Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory bus width differs: AMD is dual-channel, Intel is single-channel. Memory bandwidth differs: AMD at 89.6 GB/s, Intel at 59.7 GB/s. ECC support is present on AMD, absent on Intel. PCIe lane count differs: AMD at 16 lanes, Intel at 6 lanes, both Gen 4. The integrated graphics differ: Radeon 880M versus Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $426; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Intel part has a recorded part number SAE3E; the AMD part number is 100-000001571. The AMD generation is recorded as Ryzen AI PRO 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c), while the Intel generation is Core 5 (Wildcat Lake). The Intel architecture field is null in the database, while the AMD architecture is Zen 5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 dominates the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 2023 against Intel's 1374, a 47.2% margin. In Cinebench R15 single-core, AMD scores 271 against 193, a 40.4% margin. The Cinebench R23 results are closer: AMD leads multi-core by 1.2% (13794 vs 13634) and single-core by 1.8% (1958 vs 1924). The Intel part narrows the gap in the newer Cinebench version, but the AMD part still wins both.

PassMark results show the largest AMD advantages. Integer math favors AMD by 126.1% (77414 vs 34238), the biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression favors AMD by 79.6% (256603 vs 142877). Random string sorting favors AMD by 61% (28390 vs 17636). Extended instructions favor AMD by 45.5% (18029 vs 12390). Multithread favors AMD by 42.3% (22125 vs 15544). Data encryption favors AMD by 18.8% (13264 vs 11164). Floating-point math favors AMD by 4.5% (46996 vs 44963). Physics favors AMD by 3.6% (1257 vs 1213).

The Intel Core 7 360 wins three PassMark tests. Single-thread performance favors Intel by 9.6% (4274 vs 3862), and the identical singlethread test shows the same margin. Find prime numbers favors Intel by 36.7% (120 vs 76). These wins indicate that in specific single-threaded integer workloads, the Intel part's per-core efficiency, despite fewer cores and a lower boost clock, provides a measurable edge.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the split: AMD at 32662, Intel at 18374. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 155H with a delta of -0.1% and the Intel Core i5-14600T at -0.1%, placing the AMD chip in a competitive band. The Intel Core 7 360's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-13100 at 0% delta, the Intel Core 5 330 at 0.2%, the Intel Core i3-14100 at 0.3%, and the Intel Core 3 305 at 0.4%. The Intel part's average score sits just below the Core i3-13100, which indicates its performance class aligns with entry-level desktop parts.

The data shows that the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 360 is the stronger overall processor in the database, with a higher percentile, higher average score, and 12 wins out of 15 comparisons. The Intel Core 7 360 is not without merit: its single-thread PassMark score and prime number test result show that certain workloads will run faster on the Intel chip. The dual-channel memory bus and 16 PCIe lanes on the AMD part, combined with ECC support, further separate the two in platform capability. The Intel part's lower TDP (15 W vs 28 W) and smaller process node (3 nm vs 4 nm) suggest a power efficiency focus, but the database does not include power consumption measurements to confirm that.