AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is extensive, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no benchmark scores in the database. This makes a direct comparison of measured performance impossible. The Intel part, however, shows clear strengths in its own results. In Cinebench R23, it scores 18,747 points in multi-core and 2,080 points in single-core. Its PassMark multi-thread score is 33,802, with a single-thread score of 4,124. The Intel chip also handles specialized workloads well: passmark data compression hits 332,508, floating point math reaches 103,842, and integer math scores 83,147.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H holds an 87th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database. Its closest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 with an average score of 41,208, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41,215, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G at 40,718, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41,263. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H sits roughly 0.6% behind the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 and the Core Ultra 7 356H, 0.7% behind the Core Ultra 7 366H, and 0.6% ahead of the Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G. These are tight margins, indicating the X7 358H is competitive with its immediate peers.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded benchmark scores, so there are no wins to attribute to it from the database. The Intel part wins every available comparison by default, since only its results exist. The X7 358H’s average benchmark score is 40,967, a figure that places it in the upper half of all CPUs, but without AMD data, the head-to-head analysis is one-sided.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the database, the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the only chip with measurable performance data. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS is listed with a 50th percentile ranking against all CPUs, but it has no average benchmark score and no nearest rivals recorded. The Intel part, by contrast, has 17 benchmark entries spanning Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark workloads. Its 87th percentile ranking indicates it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database, while the AMD part’s 50th percentile suggests it sits at the median, though this is not backed by any direct measurements.

For a builder choosing between these two, the data points firmly toward Intel. The X7 358H delivers top-tier multi-core and single-core results, with a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,747 and a single-core score of 2,080. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,124 confirms strong per-core performance. The AMD chip offers no comparable figures, so its capabilities cannot be quantified from the database. The Intel chip also has a higher process node advantage at 3 nm versus the AMD’s 4 nm, which may contribute to its efficiency, though no direct power or thermal measurements are provided.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear pick for anyone who needs proven performance in the database. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS is a viable option only if its unmeasured characteristics, such as embedded-specific features, are prioritized, but the data does not support a performance-based recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in every measurable category because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no benchmark records. For multi-threaded workloads, the Intel chip’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,747 and PassMark multi-thread score of 33,802 indicate strong parallel processing capability. For single-threaded tasks, its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2,080 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,124 show solid per-core execution. Specialized tasks also favor Intel: data compression at 332,508, data encryption at 26,046, extended instructions at 27,274, prime number finding at 337, floating point math at 103,842, integer math at 83,147, physics at 3,021, and random string sorting at 40,357.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has no recorded wins, so its use case is limited to scenarios where the database lacks coverage. Its integrated Radeon 760M graphics and support for ECC memory are notable features, but these are not benchmarked. The Intel chip’s integrated Arc B390 graphics are similarly unmeasured, so no GPU performance comparison is possible.

For a builder, the Intel part is the safer choice for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, encoding, or simulation, based on its recorded scores. The AMD part might appeal to those needing ECC memory support or embedded-specific features, but the data does not quantify any performance advantage.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H outperform the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS in multi-core workloads?

A: The database only contains multi-core results for the Intel chip. It scores 18,747 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 33,802 in PassMark multi-thread. The AMD chip has no recorded multi-core benchmarks, so no direct comparison is possible.

Q: What is the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H’s single-core performance?

A: The Intel chip scores 2,080 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4,124 in PassMark single-thread. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score is 301.5, and its R20 single-core score is 1,695.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Intel chip’s average benchmark score is 40,967. It is 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41,208) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41,215), 0.7% behind the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H (41,263), and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (40,718).

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

A: No. The database lists the AMD chip with a 50th percentile ranking against all CPUs, but it has no average benchmark score and no nearest rivals. All recorded performance data belongs to the Intel part.

Q: Which chip has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel chip offers more physical cores, while the AMD chip uses simultaneous multi-threading to reach 12 threads from 6 cores.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses a 3 nm process from Intel. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel chip’s smaller node may offer efficiency benefits, though no power or thermal data is recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, part of the 8000 series. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 25,000 million transistors and a die size of 178 mm². Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename from the Core Ultra Series 3, built on Intel’s 3 nm process. It has no transistor count or die size recorded. Its cache is larger per core: 192 KB of L1, 3 MB of L2, and 18 MB of shared L3.

The AMD chip supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory. The Intel chip supports LPDDR5X memory with dual-channel bus and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, but no ECC. The AMD chip’s PCIe support is Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes. The AMD chip’s integrated graphics are Radeon 760M, and the Intel chip uses Arc B390. The AMD chip is a 6-core, 12-thread part with base clock 4.30 GHz and boost 5.00 GHz. The Intel chip is a 16-core, 16-thread part with base clock 1.90 GHz and boost 4.80 GHz. The Intel chip has a lower TDP of 25 watts versus the AMD’s 45 watts, which may affect thermal design in compact systems.

The AMD chip is part of the Ryzen Embedded line, indicating a focus on embedded applications, while the Intel chip is a mobile part from the Panther Lake-H generation. The AMD chip’s socket is AMD Socket FP8, and the Intel chip uses Intel BGA 2540. The Intel chip has a part number of SA4RAQ9ET, while the AMD chip’s part number is unknown. The AMD chip was released in April 2024, and the Intel chip in January 2026. Both are active in production and have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly: the AMD Ryzen Embedded 8645HS has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD chip has a higher base clock of 4.30 GHz versus the Intel’s 1.90 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. The AMD chip has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel chip is rated at 25 watts. The AMD chip uses DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel chip uses LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD chip supports ECC memory, the Intel chip does not. PCIe support differs: the AMD chip has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, the Intel chip has Gen 5 with 4 lanes.

Cache sizes differ across all levels. The AMD chip has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Intel chip has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The Intel chip’s larger per-core caches and higher total L3 may benefit certain workloads, though no benchmark data for the AMD chip exists to confirm this. The process node differs: the AMD chip is 4 nm from TSMC, the Intel chip is 3 nm from Intel. The Intel chip has no transistor count or die size recorded, while the AMD chip has 25,000 million transistors and a 178 mm² die.

The integrated graphics differ: the AMD chip has Radeon 760M, the Intel chip has Arc B390. The sockets are different: AMD Socket FP8 versus Intel BGA 2540. The AMD chip is from the 8000 series with Hawk Point codename, and the Intel chip is from the Core Ultra Series 3 with Panther Lake codename. The AMD chip’s market segment is Mobile, as is the Intel chip’s, but the AMD chip is explicitly part of the Ryzen Embedded line. The Intel chip has a higher percentile ranking at 87 versus the AMD’s 50, and its average benchmark score is 40,967, while the AMD chip has no score recorded.