AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive, category-wide victory for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX over the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H. Across all 17 recorded tests, the AMD processor wins, with the advantage ranging from a narrow 3.4% margin to a dominant 183.9% margin. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The most dramatic differences appear in throughput-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD scores 59,494 against Intel's 28,477, a 108.9% lead. The single-core result in the same test shows a similar 108.9% gap, with scores of 8,399 and 4,020. This consistency across single and multi-threaded Cinebench tests indicates that the architectural advantage is fundamental, not just a matter of core count.

PassMark results reinforce this pattern. The AMD leads by 181.2% in data compression (920,954 vs. 327,455), by 182.1% in integer math (236,120 vs. 83,695), and by 183.9% in extended instructions (76,363 vs. 26,901). The largest single delta is the 183.9% in extended instructions, which suggests the AMD's instruction processing capabilities are in a different tier entirely.

Floating-point math shows a 50.8% advantage for AMD (156,215 vs. 103,615), while physics scores are 44.3% higher (4,156 vs. 2,880). The narrowest margin is in the find prime numbers test, where AMD's 337 barely edges Intel's 326, a 3.4% difference. This near-tie in a specific integer-heavy task shows that the Intel chip can compete in isolated workloads, but it cannot sustain that competitiveness across the broader suite.

The PassMark multi-thread score tells a stark story: AMD's 67,035 is 100.5% higher than Intel's 33,429, exactly doubling the output. Single-thread PassMark scores are closer, with AMD at 4,530 and Intel at 4,043, a 12% lead. This 12% single-thread advantage, combined with the 108.9% Cinebench single-core lead, suggests that the AMD's clock speed and per-core efficiency are substantially superior.

Data encryption shows a 71.8% gap (44,389 vs. 25,845), and random string sorting is 150.7% apart (99,813 vs. 39,814). Every test, from compression to physics, follows the same trajectory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records zero wins, and the data indicates no scenario in this benchmark set where it outperforms the AMD part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors occupy entirely different segments of the hardware landscape. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is a desktop part using the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is a mobile processor using the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm process by Intel. The node difference is significant, but the AMD's larger die and higher power envelope allow it to extract far more performance.

Core counts are identical at 16, but threading diverges sharply. The AMD supports 32 threads, while the Intel supports only 16. This doubles the AMD's thread capacity, a critical factor in multi-threaded benchmarks. The AMD's base clock is 4.50 GHz with a boost of 5.40 GHz, while the Intel runs at 2.00 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD's higher boost clock, combined with its simultaneous multithreading, explains its dominance in Cinebench multi-core tests.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD uses 64 KB L1 cache per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and a 64 MB L3 pool. The Intel uses 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. While the Intel has a larger per-core L1 and L2, the AMD's 64 MB L3 is more than triple the Intel's 18 MB, providing a substantial advantage for data-heavy workloads.

Memory subsystems are worlds apart. The AMD supports DDR5 over an eight-channel bus, delivering 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus, capped at 115.2 GB/s. The AMD's bandwidth is 3.5 times higher, which directly fuels its massive leads in data compression and string sorting tests. The AMD also supports ECC memory; the Intel does not.

PCIe connectivity differs similarly. The AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the Intel provides Gen 5 with 12 lanes. This positions the AMD for multi-GPU and expansion-heavy systems, whereas the Intel is constrained to mobile form factors. The Intel includes integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics, while the AMD has no integrated graphics, relying on discrete GPUs.

The AMD's TDP is 350 watts, versus the Intel's 25 watts. This 14-fold power difference explains the performance gap, but it also defines their use cases: the AMD demands a workstation platform with robust cooling, while the Intel targets power-efficient mobile devices. The AMD uses the AMD Socket sTR5, and the Intel uses Intel BGA 2540, confirming their incompatible physical designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins every benchmark in the comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins all 17 recorded tests. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H records zero wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is 183.9% in the PassMark extended instructions test, where AMD scores 76,363 and Intel scores 26,901.

Q: How do their thread counts differ?

A: The AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD's threading doubles its logical core count.

Q: What are their memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The AMD delivers 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR5 bus. The Intel delivers 115.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Is the single-thread performance gap as large as the multi-thread gap?

A: No. In PassMark single-thread, the AMD leads by 12% (4,530 vs. 4,043). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the lead is 108.9% (8,399 vs. 4,020), which is larger than the PassMark single-thread gap.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD supports ECC memory, while the Intel does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Series | 9000 series | Core Ultra Series 3 |

| Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.50 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2026-01-04 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $1649 | Not available |

The AMD has a higher base and boost clock, a higher TDP, more threads, larger L3 cache, wider memory bus, ECC support, more PCIe lanes, an unlocked multiplier, and a 4 nm process. The Intel has a smaller 3 nm process, per-core L1 and L2 caches, integrated graphics, and lower power consumption. The Intel's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to an unambiguous conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is the overwhelmingly faster processor. Its average benchmark score is 101,041, placing it in the 97th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has an average score of 41,263, placing it in the 87th percentile. The AMD's nearest rivals in the database are server-class parts like the AMD EPYC 7513 (score 102,244, delta -1.2%) and the AMD EPYC 8324P (score 103,329, delta -2.2%), which puts it in a completely different performance class than the Intel mobile chip.

The Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (score 41,215, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (score 41,208, delta 0.1%), showing that the Intel is competitive within its own mobile segment, but that segment sits far below the AMD workstation tier. The AMD outperforms the Intel by 144.9% in average benchmark score (101,041 vs. 41,263).

The AMD's 97th percentile ranking versus the Intel's 87th percentile is a 10-point gap, which understates the actual benchmark deltas. Percentile rankings compress the scale at the top end, but the raw scores reveal the true magnitude. The AMD is designed for workstation-class workloads: massive memory bandwidth, 128 PCIe lanes, ECC support, and 32 threads. The Intel is a mobile processor with integrated graphics and a 25-watt TDP, built for efficiency rather than raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in data compression (181.2% lead), extended instructions (183.9% lead), and integer math (182.1% lead). These workloads benefit from the AMD's 64 MB L3 cache, 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 32 threads. The AMD also dominates in multi-threaded rendering, with a 108.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, making it the clear choice for CPU-based rendering, simulation, and batch processing tasks.

The AMD's 50.8% lead in floating-point math and 44.3% lead in physics indicate strong performance in scientific computing and physics simulation. Its 71.8% lead in data encryption points to advantages in security-related workloads. The AMD's single-thread performance, while less dominant at 12% in PassMark, still leads, and its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 8,399 versus 4,020 shows a 108.9% advantage in that specific test.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has no benchmark wins, but its closest result is the find prime numbers test, where it trails by only 3.4% (326 vs. 337). This suggests that in certain integer-heavy, cache-resident tasks, the Intel can approach the AMD's performance. The Intel's advantage lies outside the benchmark suite: its 3 nm process, 25-watt TDP, and integrated Intel Xe3 Graphics make it suitable for thin-and-light mobile devices where power draw and heat generation are primary constraints. Its dual-channel memory and 12 PCIe lanes are sufficient for mobile workloads but cannot support the expansion and bandwidth demands that the AMD's eight-channel, 128-lane platform handles.

For users prioritizing raw computational throughput, the AMD is the only choice based on this data. For users prioritizing portability, power efficiency, and integrated graphics, the Intel serves a purpose that the AMD cannot, but it sacrifices performance in every measured benchmark to do so.