AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains no shared benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. The head-to-head comparison table is empty, and the win counts for both processors are zero. This means a direct, apples-to-apples performance comparison cannot be constructed from measured data. The absence of overlapping test scores is itself a data point: any relative performance claims between these two parts cannot be substantiated by the database.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, however, has a complete set of 17 benchmark entries, all from Cinebench and PassMark suites. Its average benchmark score is 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded benchmarks and an average score of zero, with a 50th percentile ranking. The percentile gap between the two (87 versus 50) is large, but it reflects data availability as much as performance. The AMD part simply has no measured scores to analyze.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H's Cinebench results show a strong multi-threaded profile. In Cinebench R23, it scores 28,477 multi-core and 4,020 single-core. In Cinebench R20, the scores are 11,960 multi-core and 1,688 single-core. The R15 run yields 2,870 multi-core and 405 single-core. The multi-core to single-core ratios are consistent across versions: approximately 7.1x in R23, 7.1x in R20, and 7.1x in R15. This indicates a design where multi-threaded workloads benefit substantially from the 16 physical cores, but single-thread performance remains the limiting factor.

PassMark results for the Intel part reveal specific strengths. The data compression score is 327,455, which is the highest single metric in its benchmark set. Floating point math scores 103,615, while integer math scores 83,695. The multithread score is 33,429, and the single-thread score is 4,043 (recorded twice under slightly different test names, both at 4,043). Extended instructions (SIMD-heavy workloads) score 26,901. Data encryption scores 25,845. Random string sorting scores 39,814. Physics simulation scores 2,880. Prime number finding scores 326.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H provide context for its average score. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41,215, which is 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 averages 41,208, also 0.1% lower. The AMD Ryzen 9 5900X averages 41,376, which is 0.3% higher than the 366H. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40,967, which is 0.7% lower. These deltas are all within one percentage point, indicating that the 366H sits in a tightly clustered performance band. The 366H is essentially tied with its closest rivals in aggregate score, neither decisively ahead nor behind.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no benchmark records, no wins can be assigned to it. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H also has zero recorded wins in the head-to-head table, since the comparison cannot be scored. The database does not support any conclusion about which chip is faster in a direct matchup. The only quantitative statement possible is that the Intel part has measured scores and the AMD part does not.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average benchmark score of 41,263 across its 17 recorded tests. This places it in the 87th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of zero, and a recorded percentile of 50. No Cinebench, PassMark, or other test scores are available for it.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 366H is within 0.7% of all four nearest rivals. It is 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, 0.1% above the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, and 0.7% above the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H.

Q: What are the strongest benchmark results for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: The highest raw scores are in PassMark data compression at 327,455 and floating point math at 103,615. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 28,477, and the single-core score is 4,020.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel part has 10 more physical cores, but the AMD part has simultaneous multithreading, giving it 12 threads from 6 cores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in every category where measured data exists. Its 16 physical cores deliver high multi-threaded throughput, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,477. The PassMark multithread score of 33,429 confirms this advantage. Workloads that scale with core count, such as video rendering, software compilation, and data processing, would benefit from this configuration. The data compression score of 327,455 is particularly strong, suggesting an advantage in archival and database workloads that rely on compression throughput.

The Intel part also wins in single-thread performance based on the recorded data. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 4,020, and its PassMark single-thread score is 4,043. These numbers indicate a capable single-core design despite the lower 2.00 GHz base clock. The boost clock of 4.80 GHz helps in bursty workloads. The floating point math score of 103,615 and integer math score of 83,695 show balanced arithmetic capabilities.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS cannot be assigned any wins from the database because it has no benchmark scores. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration with a 5.00 GHz boost clock suggests potential for latency-sensitive or lightly threaded tasks, but no measured data supports this. The 4 nm process node and 25,000 million transistors indicate a dense design, but process characteristics do not translate directly to performance without benchmarks. The absence of data means the database cannot confirm any use case where the AMD part wins.

For practical purposes, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the only part with verified performance in this comparison. The AMD part's strengths, if any, remain undocumented in the database. Any workload selection between these two processors should rely on the Intel part's measured results, since the AMD part offers no quantitative basis for decision-making.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The core count difference is substantial: the Intel part has 2.67x more cores. Thread counts differ less, with the Intel part at 16 threads versus 12 for the AMD part.

Clock speeds are reversed in design philosophy. The AMD part has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The AMD part's base clock is more than double the Intel part's, while the boost clocks are closer, with only a 0.20 GHz gap. This indicates the AMD part favors sustained high frequency, while the Intel part relies on boost behavior.

Thermal design power differs by 20 watts. The AMD part has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 25 watts. The lower TDP for the Intel part suggests it may be more suited to constrained thermal environments, though the database does not include cooling requirements.

Memory support shows distinct capabilities. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel configuration and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part has 25.6 GB/s more memory bandwidth, which is a 28.6% advantage.

PCIe generations and lane counts differ. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 12 CPU lanes. The AMD part has 8 more lanes, while the Intel part has a newer generation with higher per-lane bandwidth.

The sockets are incompatible. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. These are physically different packages that cannot be interchanged.

ECC memory support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not. This is a meaningful distinction for reliability-sensitive applications.

Integrated graphics differ. The AMD part uses Radeon 760M, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so relative GPU performance cannot be assessed.

Release dates are far apart. The AMD part released on 2024-04-01, while the Intel part released on 2026-01-04. The Intel part is nearly two years newer.

The process nodes are from different foundries. The AMD part uses TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel part uses Intel's 3 nm process. The AMD part has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part has no recorded transistor count or die size.

Cache configurations differ in structure. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core caches at every level, and 2 MB more shared L3.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename. It belongs to the 8000 series and the Ryzen Embedded generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses the Panther Lake architecture with the Panther Lake codename. It belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H) generation. These are fundamentally different microarchitectures from different manufacturers.

The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Intel part is built on a 3 nm process at Intel, with no transistor count or die size recorded. The process node difference suggests the Intel part may have a denser transistor layout, but the lack of data on the Intel part's transistor count prevents direct comparison.

Core design philosophies differ significantly. The AMD part uses 6 full Zen 4 cores with symmetric multithreading, yielding 12 threads. The Intel part uses 16 cores with no multithreading, yielding 16 threads. The Intel part's thread count is only 33% higher than the AMD part's, despite having 167% more cores. This reflects a heterogeneous or efficiency-focused core design in the Intel part, though the database does not specify performance versus efficiency core types.

Cache architecture reflects these different approaches. The AMD part has a uniform core design where each core gets 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, with a 16 MB shared L3. The Intel part gives each core 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2, with an 18 MB shared L3. The larger per-core caches in the Intel part suggest a design that values local data retention, while the AMD part's smaller per-core caches rely more on the shared L3.

Memory controllers differ. The AMD part supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The Intel part's support for LPDDR5X indicates a mobile-oriented design that can use lower-power memory. The AMD part's ECC support targets embedded and reliability-focused deployments.

PCIe capabilities are a key architectural difference. The AMD part provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, which is a higher lane count but older generation. The Intel part provides PCIe Gen 5 with 12 lanes, which is a newer generation with higher per-lane bandwidth but fewer total lanes. For devices that need many Gen 4 lanes, the AMD part has an advantage. For devices that need fewer, faster Gen 5 lanes, the Intel part is superior.

Integrated graphics differ by vendor. The AMD part uses Radeon 760M, based on AMD's graphics architecture. The Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics, based on Intel's Xe architecture. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so architectural differences in GPU compute cannot be quantified.

The production status for both parts is Active, meaning both are currently in production. The AMD part has a multiplier that is locked, and the Intel part also has a locked multiplier. Neither processor supports overclocking via multiplier adjustment.

The Intel part has a part number recorded as SA4R9Q9EL, while the AMD part's part number is unknown. This is a minor administrative difference with no performance implications.

The release timing is notable. The AMD part launched in April 2024, while the Intel part launched in January 2026. The Intel part is from a later generation and newer process node. The AMD part belongs to the 8000 series, which is an embedded-focused line. The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, which is a mainstream mobile line. These different market positions are reflected in their feature sets: the AMD part emphasizes ECC and a higher base clock, while the Intel part emphasizes core count and memory bandwidth.