AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX across every single test in the head-to-head comparison. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 does not secure a single win in the fifteen recorded comparisons. The margins, however, vary considerably by workload, and those differences reveal where each processor's strengths and weaknesses actually lie.

The largest gap appears in the PassMark prime number test, where the Intel part scores 400 against the AMD's 117, a difference of 70.7 percent in Intel's favor. This is a substantial lead in a workload that relies heavily on integer arithmetic and branch handling. Floating point math shows a similar story, with Intel delivering 160624 against AMD's 62802, a 60.9 percent advantage. These two results point to a significant throughput difference in raw computational tasks.

Data encryption also favors Intel heavily, with a score of 39499 versus 18297, a 53.7 percent lead. The extended instructions test, which measures SIMD and vectorized workloads, gives Intel a 39.1 percent edge, scoring 41247 to AMD's 25113. Data compression shows Intel ahead by 31.2 percent, recording 515143 against 354510.

Multi-threaded rendering benchmarks follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 32612 against AMD's 18698, a 42.7 percent advantage. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows Intel at 4916 versus AMD's 2842, a 42.2 percent lead. PassMark multi-thread scoring puts Intel at 48234 and AMD at 29467, a 38.9 percent difference. The physics test, another multi-thread workload, gives Intel a 41.8 percent edge at 2926 versus 1704.

Single-thread performance tells a more moderate story. The Intel part leads by 7.9 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2163 against 1992. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 7.3 percent lead, with Intel at 327 and AMD at 303. PassMark single-thread gives Intel a 15.8 percent edge, 4562 versus 3841. The smallest margins in the entire comparison appear in these single-thread tests, which suggests that the per-core efficiency gap between the two architectures is much narrower than the multi-thread gap.

Integer math shows the closest raw compute result, with Intel at 127126 against AMD's 101831, a 19.9 percent lead. Random string sorting gives Intel a 37 percent advantage, 62591 versus 39447. Across every category, the data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX holds a commanding position, but the size of that lead depends heavily on whether the workload scales with core count or with single-thread speed.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data does not show any benchmark category where the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 wins outright. Every head-to-head test in the database favors the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. That said, the size of the deficit matters for practical use, and the AMD part is far closer in some workloads than in others.

Single-threaded applications represent the narrowest gap. The Cinebench R23 single-core result shows only a 7.9 percent difference, and Cinebench R15 single-core is nearly identical at 7.3 percent. For everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded software, the AMD processor remains competitive, even though it does not take the lead. PassMark single-thread widens the gap to 15.8 percent, so the Intel part does pull ahead in more demanding single-thread tasks, but this remains the best area of comparison for the AMD chip.

Multi-threaded rendering is where the Intel processor runs away. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result of 32612 versus 18698 represents a 42.7 percent advantage. Anyone rendering video, compiling code, or running simulation workloads would see a dramatic difference in completion times. The PassMark multi-thread score confirms this with a 38.9 percent lead, and the physics test shows a 41.8 percent edge. These are the workloads where the 20-core Intel part uses its hardware resources to maximum effect.

Specialized compute tasks show the most extreme separation. The prime number test at 70.7 percent, floating point math at 60.9 percent, and data encryption at 53.7 percent all indicate that the Intel part has a decisive advantage in mathematically intensive and cryptographic workloads. Extended instructions at 39.1 percent and compression at 31.2 percent also favor Intel substantially. The AMD part's best showing among these specialized tasks is integer math, where the deficit shrinks to 19.9 percent.

In practical terms, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is best suited to light, responsive workloads and power-conscious mobile use. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the clear choice for sustained multi-threaded performance and compute-heavy tasks. The data does not provide any scenario where the AMD chip wins, but its smaller single-thread deficit means it does not embarrass itself in daily use.

The Verdict

The benchmark results show a decisive overall win for the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. The Intel part holds the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 sits at the 87th percentile. The average benchmark score for Intel is 62738, compared to 40048 for AMD, and the nearest rival data reinforces that gap. Intel's closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185, scores 62839, a 0.2 percent difference. AMD's closest rival, the AMD Ryzen 7 7700, scores 40081, a 0.1 percent difference. Both chips sit in very different performance tiers.

For users who prioritize multi-threaded rendering, heavy computation, or any workload that scales with core count, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the only rational pick based on this data. The 42.7 percent lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 60.9 percent lead in floating point math are not marginal improvements; they represent a fundamentally different performance class. The Intel part also carries an unlocked multiplier, which the database records, so it offers additional headroom that the AMD part does not.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 is the more conservative choice for mobile systems where the 28 W TDP matters more than peak throughput. The Intel part draws 55 W, nearly double the AMD's power envelope. The AMD chip also uses a smaller die at 233 mm² versus Intel's 243 mm², and it holds a 4 nm process node against Intel's 3 nm. For a thin-and-light laptop that needs decent single-thread performance and long battery life, the AMD part is the sensible pick despite losing every benchmark.

The data does not support any scenario where the AMD processor wins on performance. It wins on power efficiency and integration. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX delivers the highest recorded scores across the board, and the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 delivers competitive single-thread performance at roughly half the power draw. Choose accordingly.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX leads in every multi-core test. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 32612 versus 18698, a 42.7 percent advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 48234 versus 29467, a 38.9 percent lead.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel part wins all single-thread tests, but by smaller margins. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 7.9 percent lead, Cinebench R15 single-core shows 7.3 percent, and PassMark single-thread shows 15.8 percent.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has 20 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX has a TDP of 55 W, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 has a TDP of 28 W.

Q: Which processor ranks higher in the database?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX ranks in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 ranks in the 87th percentile.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX have ECC memory support recorded as false.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC. Its codename is Strix Point, and it belongs to the Ryzen AI 300 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The die measures 233 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm process node, also fabricated by TSMC. Its codename is Arrow Lake-HX, and it belongs to the Ultra 7 generation. The die measures 243 mm² and contains 17,800 million transistors.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part allocates 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel part carries nearly double the L3 cache, which helps explain its strong performance in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 2114. The AMD chip has a locked multiplier; the Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part is not marked as having a series designation, while the Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2. The AMD part's part number is 100-000001530, and the Intel part's part number is SRVFG.

The integrated graphics also differ. AMD uses the Radeon 880M, while Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The database does not record any graphics benchmarks for either part, so the comparison here is limited to the CPU-side architecture. The AMD processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel processor supports DDR5 only. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: AMD has 10 cores and 20 threads, Intel has 20 cores and 20 threads. The Intel part has twice the physical cores, but both present the same thread count to the operating system. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for AMD and 2.40 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 5.00 GHz for AMD and 5.20 GHz for Intel. The Intel part has a 0.20 GHz advantage in both clock measurements.

Power draw differs substantially. The AMD part has a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part has a 55 W TDP. This nearly doubles the thermal load for the Intel chip, which is a critical consideration for mobile system design. The AMD part's lower power draw makes it a better fit for smaller chassis with limited cooling.

Memory bandwidth shows a clear Intel advantage: 102.4 GB/s for Intel versus 89.6 GB/s for AMD. The PCIe interface also differs. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes. This gives Intel a generation advantage and four additional lanes for peripheral connectivity.

The process node is the only manufacturing difference: 4 nm for AMD and 3 nm for Intel. Both are produced by TSMC, but the smaller node gives Intel a density advantage. The die size is 233 mm² for AMD and 243 mm² for Intel. The Intel die is slightly larger despite the smaller node, which reflects the higher core count and larger cache. The AMD part was released on 2024-06-30, while the Intel part was released on 2025-01-12. Both are recorded as active production parts in the mobile segment. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.