AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no shared benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. The Intel part has a full set of recorded scores, while the AMD part has no benchmark entries, so a direct comparison relies on the Intel chip's absolute numbers and its standing among nearby rivals.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H shows strong multi-threaded performance in Cinebench. It scores 28,477 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 11,960 in R20 multi-core, and 2,870 in R15 multi-core. Single-core results are 4,020 in R23, 1,688 in R20, and 405 in R15. These indicate a capable mobile processor with solid scaling from single-threaded to heavily threaded workloads.

PassMark results for the Intel chip reinforce its balanced profile. The multi-thread score is 33,429, and the single-thread score is 4,043. Integer math reaches 83,695, floating point math hits 103,615, and extended instructions score 26,901. Data compression is notably strong at 327,455, while data encryption scores 25,845. Find prime numbers scores 326, random string sorting 39,814, and physics 2,880.

The Intel chip ranks at the 87th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 41,263. Its nearest rivals cluster tightly: the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 41,215 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 scores 41,208 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 41,376 (0.3% behind), and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 40,967 (0.7% behind). This places the 366H in a very narrow performance band where differences of less than 1% separate it from several alternatives.

Because the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has no benchmark scores in the database, no head-to-head wins can be established. The Intel chip is the only one of the two with measurable performance data, and its percentile rank indicates it sits above most processors in the database, though its near rivals are within a fraction of a percent in average score.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H compare to its closest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The 366H averages 41,263. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is 0.1% ahead at 41,215, the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 is 0.1% ahead at 41,208, the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X is 0.3% behind at 41,376, and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is 0.7% behind at 40,967.

Q: What are the Cinebench scores for the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H?

A: In Cinebench R23, it scores 28,477 multi-core and 4,020 single-core. In R20, it scores 11,960 multi-core and 1,688 single-core. In R15, it scores 2,870 multi-core and 405 single-core.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the AMD part, so its performance cannot be quantified from recorded measurements.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H supports 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D supports 89.6 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD part has more threads despite fewer cores.

Q: What are the PassMark physics and prime number scores for the Intel chip?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 2,880 in PassMark physics and 326 in find prime numbers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D wins on thread count. With 12 cores and 24 threads, it offers simultaneous multithreading, which the Intel chip lacks entirely. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. For workloads that scale with thread count, the AMD part has the structural advantage, though no benchmark data confirms how that translates into actual scores.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins on measured performance. Its recorded Cinebench and PassMark scores place it at the 87th percentile, and its average score of 41,263 is within 0.7% of several well-known rivals. The AMD part has no recorded scores, so all performance comparisons favor the Intel chip by default.

The Intel chip also wins on memory bandwidth. It supports 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s for the AMD part. This benefits memory-heavy tasks such as data compression and encryption, where the Intel chip already shows strong PassMark numbers (327,455 for compression, 25,845 for encryption).

The AMD part wins on power envelope flexibility. Its 120 W TDP suggests a desktop-oriented design with headroom for sustained loads, while the Intel chip's 25 W TDP indicates a mobile-focused, power-efficient configuration. The AMD chip also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Intel chip is locked.

For single-threaded tasks, the Intel chip's measured single-core Cinebench scores (4,020 in R23, 1,688 in R20, 405 in R15) and PassMark single-thread score of 4,043 give it a clear edge in the only category where numbers exist. The AMD part's higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz versus 4.80 GHz suggests potential single-thread strength, but without benchmark data this remains unverified.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 4.40 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 5.50 GHz for AMD and 4.80 GHz for Intel.

Thermal design power differs substantially: 120 W for AMD versus 25 W for Intel. The AMD part uses an AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel part uses an Intel BGA 2540. The AMD chip has an unlocked multiplier; the Intel chip does not.

Cache configurations differ. The AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 128 MB L3. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The AMD L3 cache is far larger, over seven times the Intel L3.

Memory support diverges: AMD supports DDR5 only, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Both use dual-channel memory buses, but bandwidth favors Intel at 115.2 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on AMD but not on Intel.

PCIe lane counts differ. The AMD part provides Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon Graphics, Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Process nodes and foundries differ. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD part has 16,630 million transistors and a die size of 2x 70.6 mm²; the Intel part has no transistor count or die size listed.

Release dates differ. The AMD part was released on October 6, 2025, while the Intel part was released on January 4, 2026. Market segments differ: AMD targets Desktop, Intel targets Mobile. Production status for both is Active.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D belongs to the 9000 series, uses the Granite Ridge codename, and is based on Zen 5 (Granite Ridge) architecture. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, uses the Panther Lake codename, and is based on Panther Lake architecture (Panther Lake-H generation).

The AMD part uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process at Intel. This gives Intel a smaller process node, though the AMD chip compensates with a large L3 cache of 128 MB, which exceeds the Intel chip's 18 MB shared L3 by a wide margin.

Threading strategy differs fundamentally. The AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading, delivering 24 threads from 12 cores. The Intel chip has 16 threads from 16 cores, indicating no SMT. For heavily threaded workloads, the AMD architecture provides more logical processors, though the Intel chip has more physical cores.

Memory architecture differs in both bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel chip offers higher bandwidth at 115.2 GB/s and supports LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5. The AMD chip offers lower bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s but adds ECC memory support, which matters for reliability-sensitive embedded workloads.

PCIe connectivity differs significantly. The AMD part exposes 24 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part exposes 12 Gen 5 lanes. This gives the AMD chip more expansion headroom for discrete devices.

Integrated graphics differ by vendor and architecture. AMD integrates Radeon Graphics, while Intel integrates Xe3 Graphics. Neither has benchmark data in the database for graphics performance.

The Intel chip's process advantage (3 nm versus 4 nm) pairs with its much lower 25 W TDP, suggesting a design focused on efficiency in mobile form factors. The AMD chip's 120 W TDP and unlocked multiplier point toward desktop or embedded applications where power draw is less constrained.

The Verdict

The database records no benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D, so its measured performance cannot be compared directly. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has full benchmark coverage and ranks at the 87th percentile with an average score of 41,263, placing it within 0.7% of four nearby rivals.

For users who need measured performance data, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the only option with verified scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28,477 and PassMark multi-thread score of 33,429 indicate strong throughput for a mobile processor, while its 4,043 single-thread PassMark score shows balanced single-core capability.

For users who prioritize thread count and cache size, the AMD Ryzen Embedded 9900X3D offers 24 threads versus 16, and 128 MB L3 versus 18 MB. These specifications suggest potential advantages in heavily threaded or cache-sensitive workloads, but no benchmark data confirms this.

For users who need ECC memory support or more PCIe lanes, the AMD part is the clear choice. ECC is supported on AMD but not Intel, and the AMD chip provides 24 Gen 5 lanes versus 12.

For users who need higher memory bandwidth or a lower power envelope, the Intel part wins. Its 115.2 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the AMD's 89.6 GB/s, and its 25 W TDP is far below the AMD's 120 W.

The selection depends on whether measured performance or unverified specifications matter more. The data supports the Intel chip for anyone who requires confirmed benchmark results. The AMD chip remains a specification-driven choice for those who value ECC, high thread counts, large cache, or overclocking, accepting that no recorded scores exist to validate its performance.