AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains recorded benchmark results for the Intel Core 7 360 across multiple Cinebench and PassMark tests. The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the comparison relies on the Intel part’s measured results and the architectural data for both processors.

The Intel Core 7 360 delivers a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 13634 points and a single-core score of 1924 points. In Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 5726 points, while the single-core result is 808 points. The Cinebench R15 test shows a multicore score of 1374 and a single-core score of 193. These figures place the Intel chip at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 18374.

PassMark results for the Intel Core 7 360 show a multithread score of 15544 and a single-thread score of 4274. The floating point math test records 44963 points, integer math records 34238 points, and extended instructions records 12390 points. Data compression scores 142877, data encryption scores 11164, and random string sorting scores 17636. The physics test returns 1213 points, and the prime number search returns 120 points.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D lacks benchmark entries, which means no direct head-to-head scores exist in the database. However, the architectural specifications provide a basis for evaluating expected performance differences. The AMD part uses 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel part uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD processor’s boost clock reaches 5.70 GHz, compared to 4.80 GHz for the Intel chip. The AMD part’s L3 cache totals 128 MB, while the Intel part has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

In terms of nearest rivals for the Intel Core 7 360, the database lists the Intel Core i3-13100 with an average score of 18380 and a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core 5 330 with an average score of 18345 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i3-14100 with an average score of 18318 and a delta of 0.3 percent, and the Intel Core 3 305 with an average score of 18302 and a delta of 0.4 percent. These results indicate the Intel Core 7 360 sits within a narrow band of comparable desktop processors, all scoring within 0.4 percent of each other.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 360 wins in the measured benchmark category because it is the only part with recorded scores. The data shows strong multicore performance for a 6-core, 6-thread processor, with the R23 multicore score of 13634 representing a substantial result relative to its thread count. The single-core R23 score of 1924 indicates solid per-thread efficiency, which matters for lightly threaded workloads.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D wins on raw thread throughput potential based on its configuration. With 16 cores and 32 threads, it offers more than five times the thread count of the Intel part. The 128 MB L3 cache provides a large capacity for data reuse, which benefits workloads with large working sets. The 5.70 GHz boost clock exceeds the Intel part’s 4.80 GHz boost, giving the AMD chip a clock advantage in single-threaded bursts.

For multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or simulation tasks, the AMD processor’s core count suggests a clear advantage. For single-threaded responsiveness, the AMD part’s higher boost clock and Zen 5 architecture point toward strong results, though the Intel part’s measured single-core scores remain competitive for its market segment.

The Intel part targets mobile systems with a 15 W TDP, while the AMD part targets desktop systems with a 170 W TDP. The power envelope difference means the Intel chip suits thin-and-light devices where sustained performance under low power is critical. The AMD chip suits desktop workstations where power draw is less constrained and maximum throughput is the priority.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The AMD part supports dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part’s bandwidth advantage of roughly 50 percent benefits memory-intensive workloads such as large data processing and high-resolution rendering.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D belongs to the 9000 series and uses the Granite Ridge codename, built on the Zen 5 architecture at a 4 nm process node from TSMC. The processor contains 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². Cache is organized as 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of L3. The socket is AMD Socket AM5, and the multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking. Integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics. PCIe support is Gen 5 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The part number is 100-000000719E, and the release date is 2025-10-06.

The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process node from Intel. Cache is organized as 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The socket is Intel BGA 1516, indicating a soldered mobile design. The multiplier is locked, preventing overclocking. Integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 6 lanes from the CPU. The part number is SAE3E, and the release date is 2026-04-15. The launch MSRP is $426.

The process node difference is notable: 3 nm for Intel versus 4 nm for AMD. The Intel part uses a smaller process node, which typically improves power efficiency. The AMD part uses a larger process node but compensates with more cores and higher clocks. The L1 and L2 cache per core differ: the Intel part has 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, while the AMD part has 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The Intel part’s larger per-core caches support its lower thread count.

ECC memory support differs. The AMD part supports ECC memory, which is important for error-sensitive workloads such as data integrity applications. The Intel part does not support ECC memory. The AMD part also supports dual-channel memory, while the Intel part supports single-channel memory, which halves the memory bus width.

The market segments differ: the AMD part is classified as Desktop, while the Intel part is classified as Mobile. This explains the TDP gap (170 W versus 15 W), the socket difference (AM5 versus BGA), and the PCIe lane difference (24 versus 6). The AMD part’s higher TDP allows sustained high clock speeds across all cores. The Intel part’s low TDP enables deployment in fanless or passively cooled systems.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The AMD part boosts to 5.70 GHz, while the Intel part boosts to 4.80 GHz. The AMD part has a 0.90 GHz higher maximum clock speed.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare?

A: The AMD part supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel part supports single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 360 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 170 W. The Intel part has a TDP of 15 W.

Q: What is the Intel Core 7 360’s average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 has an average benchmark score of 18374 and sits at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-13100, scores 18380 with a 0 percent delta.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field in the database.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded 9950X3D | Intel Core 7 360 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Series | 9000 series | Not specified |

| Generation | Ryzen Embedded (Zen 5, Granite Ridge) | Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Cores | 16 | 6 |

| Threads | 32 | 6 |

| Base clock | 4.30 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.70 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Process node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | Not specified |

| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm² | Not specified |

| L1 cache per core | 80 KB | 192 KB |

| L2 cache per core | 1 MB | 2.5 MB |

| L3 cache | 128 MB | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 24 lanes | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon Graphics | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release date | 2025-10-06 | 2026-04-15 |

| Part number | 100-000000719E | SAE3E |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $426 |

The base clock difference is substantial: the AMD part runs at 4.30 GHz base, while the Intel part runs at 1.50 GHz base. The AMD part’s base clock exceeds the Intel part’s boost clock. This reflects the different design goals: the AMD part prioritizes sustained high frequency at the cost of power, while the Intel part prioritizes low power draw at the cost of clock speed.

The PCIe specification also differs significantly. The AMD part uses Gen 5 with 24 lanes, providing high bandwidth for multiple GPUs or NVMe drives. The Intel part uses Gen 4 with 6 lanes, suitable for basic mobile connectivity.

The integrated graphics differ in branding and configuration. The AMD part includes Radeon Graphics, while the Intel part includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The database does not provide performance scores for either integrated GPU.

The release dates show the AMD part launched on 2025-10-06, while the Intel part is scheduled for 2026-04-15. Both parts are marked as Active in production status.

The average benchmark score for the Intel part is 18374, with a 72nd percentile ranking. The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile with an average score of 0, which reflects the absence of data rather than a performance judgment.