AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G and the Intel Core 7 360. The recorded data for the Intel part, however, provides a complete picture of its performance across a broad suite of tests. The AMD processor has no recorded benchmark scores, average score, or percentile ranking in the database, which makes a direct numerical comparison impossible. The Intel Core 7 360, in contrast, has a full set of Cinebench and PassMark results.

The Intel Core 7 360 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13634 and a single-core score of 1924. In the older Cinebench R20 suite, it scores 5726 multi-core and 808 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 1374 multi-core and 193 single-core. These scores indicate a processor that scales reasonably well from its six physical cores and six threads. The single-core results, particularly the R23 score of 1924, place it in a competitive position for lightly threaded workloads.

In the PassMark suite, the Intel Core 7 360 shows strong throughput in data compression with a score of 142877. Data encryption reaches 11164, while extended instructions score 12390. The processor finds prime numbers at a rate of 120, which is a modest result. Floating point math posts 44963, and integer math reaches 34238. The multithread score is 15544, and the physics test yields 1213. Random string sorting produces 17636, and single-thread performance is recorded at 4274.

The average benchmark score for the Intel Core 7 360 is 18374. This places it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-13100 with an average score of 18380 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 with a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 with a delta of 0.3 percent, and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18302 with a delta of 0.4 percent. These delta values are all extremely small, meaning the Core 7 360 performs within a fraction of a percentage point of these four competing processors. The data shows a tightly clustered group where the Core 7 360 sits essentially at parity with its closest rivals.

The Verdict

The database records show that the Intel Core 7 360 is a fully benchmarked processor with verified scores, a 72nd percentile ranking, and an average score of 18374. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has no recorded benchmark results, no average score, and sits at the 50th percentile with a score of zero. For anyone relying strictly on measured performance data, the Intel part is the only one with evidence of capability.

The Intel Core 7 360 is a six-core, six-thread processor with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its thermal design power is 15 watts, and it uses a single-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. These specifications align with a mobile-focused chip designed for efficiency. The AMD part is an eight-core, sixteen-thread desktop processor with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its thermal design power is 65 watts, and it uses a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s.

The core and thread counts favor the AMD part on paper, as does the higher boost clock and memory bandwidth. However, the absence of benchmark data for the AMD processor means none of those advantages are confirmed by measurements. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $426. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 360 wins in every category where measured data exists, simply because the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has no recorded scores. The Intel part demonstrates verified performance in multi-core rendering, single-core rendering, compression, encryption, math operations, and sorting tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 13634 and single-core score of 1924 provide concrete reference points for productivity and everyday responsiveness.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G wins on paper specifications. It offers eight cores and sixteen threads compared to six cores and six threads for the Intel part. Its boost clock of 5.10 GHz exceeds the Intel part's 4.80 GHz. Its dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth more than doubles the Intel part's single-channel 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. These are meaningful hardware advantages, but they are unverified by any benchmark results in the database.

The Intel Core 7 360 uses a 3 nm process node from Intel, while the AMD part uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel part has a larger L1 cache per core at 192 KB versus 80 KB for the AMD part, and a larger L2 cache per core at 2.5 MB versus 1 MB. The AMD part has a larger L3 cache at 8 MB versus 6 MB for the Intel part. The AMD die size is recorded at 195 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core 7 360?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374, placing it at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has an empty benchmarks list, an average benchmark score of zero, and a percentile rank of 50.

Q: How does the Intel Core 7 360 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374, which is within 0.2 percent of the Intel Core 5 330 (18345), within 0.3 percent of the Intel Core i3-14100 (18318), and within 0.4 percent of the Intel Core 3 305 (18302). It matches the Intel Core i3-13100 (18380) with a delta of 0 percent.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has a dual-channel memory bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 360 has a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the Intel Core 7 360?

A: The launch MSRP for the Intel Core 7 360 is $426. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation with the Gorgon Point codename, using a hybrid of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The Intel Core 7 360 belongs to the Core 5 generation with the Wildcat Lake codename. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process node at Intel. The AMD die size is 195 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded.

The AMD processor has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its thermal design power is 65 watts. The Intel processor has 6 cores and 6 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. Its thermal design power is 15 watts. The AMD part uses an AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses an Intel BGA 1516 socket.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. Both support DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but the AMD part uses a dual-channel bus while the Intel part uses a single-channel bus.

PCIe configurations also differ. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD part uses a Radeon 860M, and the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has the part number 100-000001914, while the Intel part has the part number SAE3E.

The Intel Core 7 360 is classified as a mobile processor, while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450G is classified as a desktop processor. The AMD part has a higher thermal design power at 65 watts, reflecting its desktop positioning, while the Intel part operates at 15 watts for mobile efficiency. The market segments and physical sockets confirm these different intended use cases.