AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 vs Intel Xeon w3-2525 Comparison

The Intel Xeon w3-2525 and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: the Xeon is a server/workstation processor on Intel Socket 4677 with a 175 W TDP, while the Ryzen is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP8 rated at 28 W. Despite that, both land at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with average benchmark scores of 38392 for the Xeon and 37904 for the Ryzen. The recorded data shows a clear split: the Xeon wins 5 of 15 head-to-head tests, the Ryzen wins 10, but the margins tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

Where Each One Wins

Looking at the head-to-head results, the Intel Xeon w3-2525 takes the Cinebench single-core tests decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 3404 against the Ryzen's 2018, a 68.7% lead, and in R15 single-core it leads 342 to 306.5, an 11.6% margin. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core, 24117 to 21761, a 10.8% advantage. Two Passmark tests go to Intel as well: find prime numbers (129 vs 126, 2.4%) and physics (1901 vs 1881, 1.1%). These are narrow wins, but they show the Xeon holds its own in prime-number sieving and physics simulation despite having fewer cores.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 dominates the Passmark suite. Its biggest win is integer math, 122933 to 83806, a 31.8% margin. It also takes random string sorting by 28.3% (48723 vs 34933), data compression by 23.4% (445719 vs 341629), data encryption by 23.2% (22252 vs 17086), and multithread by 19.3% (35148 vs 28373). The Ryzen wins Passmark single-thread by 13.8% (3973 vs 3426), extended instructions by 11.9% (31653 vs 27882), and floating point math by 11.3% (76892 vs 68230). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen leads 3409.5 to 2430, a 28.7% margin.

So the use-case split is straightforward: the Xeon is the pick for Cinebench-style rendering and single-threaded workloads, while the Ryzen is the pick for integer-heavy, compression, encryption, and general Passmark compute. The Ryzen's 12 cores and 24 threads give it a structural advantage in parallel integer work, while the Xeon's higher per-core L2 cache and boost behavior carry it through the Cinebench tests.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 wins more head-to-head tests (10 of 15) and takes the Passmark multithread crown by 19.3%. If your workload resembles the Passmark suite, the Ryzen is the stronger choice. The Xeon, however, wins the two most modern Cinebench tests that matter for rendering: R23 multi-core by 10.8% and R23 single-core by a massive 68.7%. For users running Cinebench-class rendering or single-threaded applications, the Xeon is the better fit.

The Xeon also brings workstation features the Ryzen lacks: ECC memory support, quad-channel DDR5 with 140.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 64 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ryzen counters with 12 cores and 24 threads versus 8 and 16, a 4 nm TSMC process versus Intel's 10 nm, and integrated Radeon 890M graphics. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $609; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP. Both sit at the 86th percentile, and the Xeon's average score of 38392 edges the Ryzen's 37904, but the per-test margins above are more informative than the averages.

Nearest-rival data reinforces the picture: the Xeon's closest competitor is the Intel Core 9 270H at a 0.1% delta, while the Ryzen's is the Intel Core i9-14901E at 0%. Neither chip is far from its peers, but the head-to-head deltas between these two are much larger, up to 68.7%. The verdict is not a blanket recommendation: pick the Xeon for rendering and single-thread precision, pick the Ryzen for general compute throughput and integrated-graphics convenience.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Starting with the Intel wins: the largest is Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon scores 3404 against 2018, a 68.7% advantage. That is the single biggest margin in the entire comparison. The Xeon also wins Cinebench R23 multi-core 24117 to 21761 (10.8%) and Cinebench R15 single-core 342 to 306.5 (11.6%). The remaining Intel wins are narrow: find prime numbers 129 to 126 (2.4%) and physics 1901 to 1881 (1.1%). These two close results suggest that in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, the Xeon's 3.50 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost are enough to keep pace with the Ryzen's higher 5.10 GHz boost.

On the AMD side, the biggest win is Passmark integer math, 122933 to 83806, a 31.8% margin. Random string sorting goes to the Ryzen 48723 to 34933 (28.3%), data compression 445719 to 341629 (23.4%), and data encryption 22252 to 17086 (23.2%). The Ryzen also wins Passmark multithread 35148 to 28373 (19.3%), single-thread 3973 to 3426 (13.8%), extended instructions 31653 to 27882 (11.9%), and floating point math 76892 to 68230 (11.3%). In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen leads 3409.5 to 2430, a 28.7% margin.

Notably, the two chips trade blows across Cinebench versions: the Ryzen wins R15 multi-core by 28.7%, but the Xeon wins R23 multi-core by 10.8%. That suggests the Xeon scales better in the newer Cinebench workload, while the Ryzen's 12-core advantage shows up in the older test. The Passmark single-thread result is also telling: the Ryzen leads by 13.8% (3973 vs 3426), yet the Xeon leads Cinebench R23 single-core by 68.7%. The two suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance, and the Xeon's advantage is concentrated in the Cinebench rendering path.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon w3-2525, scoring 24117 versus the Ryzen's 21761, a 10.8% lead.

Q: Which CPU wins Passmark integer math?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370, scoring 122933 against the Xeon's 83806, a 31.8% margin.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon w3-2525 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The Xeon has quad-channel DDR5 with 140.8 GB/s bandwidth; the Ryzen has dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X with 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon w3-2525 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 includes Radeon 890M integrated graphics; the Intel Xeon w3-2525 has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The Xeon uses Intel's Sapphire Rapids architecture on a 10 nm process fabricated by Intel, while the Ryzen uses AMD's Zen 5 architecture (Strix Point) on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Ryzen's die size is 233 mm²; the Xeon's die size is not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ: the Ryzen has 12 cores and 24 threads, the Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 differs: the Xeon has 2 MB per core, the Ryzen has 1 MB per core. L3 cache is 22.5 MB on the Xeon and 16 MB on the Ryzen. The Xeon's larger L2 and L3 allocations help it in the Cinebench single-core tests, where cache sensitivity is high.

Memory architecture is a major split. The Xeon supports DDR5 in quad-channel mode with 140.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. The Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode with 89.6 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 5 with 64 CPU lanes, the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon's 64 lanes make it suitable for multiple GPUs or high-speed storage arrays, while the Ryzen's 16 lanes are typical for a mobile platform.

The Ryzen integrates Radeon 890M graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment on Intel Socket 4677, while the Ryzen is a mobile part on AMD Socket FP8. The Xeon's TDP is 175 W, the Ryzen's is 28 W. The Xeon boosts to 4.50 GHz from a 3.50 GHz base; the Ryzen boosts to 5.10 GHz from a 2.00 GHz base. The Ryzen's higher boost clock and lower base clock reflect its power-conscious mobile design, while the Xeon's higher base clock and TDP reflect sustained workstation throughput.

Specification Differences

Where the two differ on paper: cores (8 vs 12), threads (16 vs 24), base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.00 GHz), boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 5.10 GHz), TDP (175 W vs 28 W), socket (Intel Socket 4677 vs AMD Socket FP8), architecture (Sapphire Rapids vs Zen 5), process node (10 nm vs 4 nm), foundry (Intel vs TSMC), die size (not recorded vs 233 mm²), L2 cache (2 MB per core vs 1 MB per core), L3 cache (22.5 MB vs 16 MB), memory support (DDR5 vs DDR5/LPDDR5X), memory bus (quad-channel vs dual-channel), memory bandwidth (140.8 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s), ECC (true vs false), PCIe (Gen 5 64 lanes vs Gen 4 16 lanes), integrated graphics (N/A vs Radeon 890M), market segment (server/workstation vs mobile), release date (2024-08-23 vs 2024-06-30), launch MSRP ($609 vs none), and part number (SRN4J vs 100-000000994).

Both chips share the same L1 cache size of 80 KB per core, both are locked (multiplier not unlocked), both are active production parts, and both sit at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The specification sheet makes the trade-off explicit: the Xeon trades core count and process efficiency for memory bandwidth, ECC, and PCIe lanes, while the Ryzen trades those workstation features for more cores, a smaller process node, and integrated graphics.