AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H. The widest gaps appear in data compression and extended instruction workloads, where the AMD part leads by 194.3% and 197.5% respectively. In the PassMark data compression test, the AMD scores 920954 versus 312927 for the Intel. For extended instructions, the margin is 76363 against 25669.

Cinebench results are consistently lopsided. The AMD delivers 5996 in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 2844 for the Intel, a 110.8% advantage. The same delta of 110.8% appears across Cinebench R20 multicore (24987 vs 11852), Cinebench R23 multicore (59494 vs 28221), and every single-core Cinebench variant: R15 single-core shows 846 vs 401, R20 single-core shows 3527 vs 1673, and R23 single-core shows 8399 vs 3984. The repeatability of that exact delta across all Cinebench tests indicates the performance ratio is stable regardless of workload type.

PassMark integer math shows a 168.1% lead for the AMD (236120 vs 88083), while random string sorting is 162% ahead (99813 vs 38093). Floating point math favors the AMD by 47.8% (156215 vs 105681), and physics by 45.5% (4156 vs 2857). The smallest margin is in the find prime numbers test, where AMD scores 337 versus 321, a 5% difference. Single-thread PassMark results show a more modest 13.1% gap (4530 vs 4005). The average benchmark score tells the same story: the AMD averages 101041 across all tests, while the Intel averages 40518.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel's own 3 nm node. The AMD die contains 16,630 million transistors across a dual-die layout with each die measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel part has no transistor or die size data recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. This means the AMD has over 3.5 times the L3 capacity, which directly explains its large advantages in workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD uses DDR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC support. The Intel uses LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The AMD's memory bandwidth is roughly 2.7 times higher, which contributes to its dominance in data compression and integer math tests. PCIe connectivity is also asymmetric: the AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The AMD has no integrated graphics, while the Intel includes Arc B390 graphics. The AMD is unlocked for overclocking, whereas the Intel is locked. The AMD targets the desktop segment with a 350 W TDP on AMD Socket sTR5, while the Intel targets mobile with a 25 W TDP on Intel BGA 2540. The AMD is part of the 9000 series and released on 2025-07-22, while the Intel belongs to Core Ultra Series 3 and released on 2026-01-04.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins every recorded benchmark, so the analysis is about the magnitude of each win rather than which side takes specific tests. The largest advantages (over 160%) appear in data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting. These workloads benefit heavily from the AMD's 32 threads versus 16 threads, its larger L3 cache, and its eight-channel memory bandwidth.

The AMD's most decisive win is in extended instructions at 197.5%, followed closely by data compression at 194.3%. Integer math at 168.1% and random string sorting at 162% also show the AMD pulling far ahead. These are throughput-heavy tasks where the combination of double the thread count and much higher memory bandwidth creates outsized gains.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H shows its best relative performance in the find prime numbers test, where it trails by only 5%. This test appears less sensitive to memory bandwidth and more dependent on raw per-core integer throughput. The Intel also stays closest in PassMark single-thread (13.1% gap) and floating point math (47.8% gap). These smaller margins indicate that single-thread efficiency and floating point execution are relative strengths for the Intel, even though it cannot convert those into wins.

For multi-threaded rendering, the Cinebench results show a consistent 110.8% gap across all versions and both single and multicore modes. This uniformity suggests the AMD's advantage in Cinebench is structural rather than workload-specific. The PassMark multithread test shows a 103.4% gap (67035 vs 32956), which aligns closely with the Cinebench multicore margins.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification. Core count is identical at 16, but the AMD supports 32 threads via simultaneous multithreading while the Intel supports only 16 threads. Base clocks are 4.50 GHz for the AMD versus 2.00 GHz for the Intel, and boost clocks are 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The AMD runs at a 350 W TDP, while the Intel is rated at 25 W. The AMD uses AMD Socket sTR5, and the Intel uses Intel BGA 2540.

Process node favors the Intel at 3 nm versus 4 nm for the AMD, though the AMD is fabricated by TSMC and the Intel by Intel. Cache specifications diverge sharply: the AMD has 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core versus 192 KB L1 and 2.5 MB L2 for the Intel. The AMD's 64 MB L3 dwarfs the Intel's 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support shows the AMD with DDR5, eight-channel bus, and 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel uses LPDDR5X, dual-channel bus, and 153.6 GB/s. ECC is available on the AMD but not the Intel. PCIe lanes differ by an enormous factor: 128 lanes for the AMD versus 4 lanes for the Intel, both Gen 5. Integrated graphics are absent on the AMD and present as Arc B390 on the Intel. The AMD has an unlocked multiplier and a recorded part number of 100-000000725; the Intel is locked and uses part number SA4R7Q9EJ. The AMD's launch MSRP is $1649; the Intel has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 32 threads from 16 cores, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 threads from 16 cores.

Q: How large is the L3 cache difference?

A: The AMD provides 64 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel provides 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures?

A: The AMD reaches 409.6 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR5 interface, while the Intel reaches 153.6 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5X interface.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H includes Arc B390 integrated graphics, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD scores 8399 versus 3984 for the Intel, a 110.8% difference. In PassMark single-thread, the AMD scores 4530 versus 4005, a 13.1% difference.

Q: What is the PCIe lane count for each?

A: The AMD offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX across all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD's 97th percentile ranking among all CPUs, combined with an average benchmark score of 101041, places it in a different performance class than the Intel, which sits at the 87th percentile with an average score of 40518. The AMD's nearest rivals are all EPYC server processors, with the AMD EPYC 7513 just 1.2% ahead and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX 2.6% behind. The Intel's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 253PE, which is 0.1% behind, and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H, which is 0.2% behind.

For workloads that demand maximum throughput, the AMD is the clear choice. Its 32 threads, 64 MB L3, and 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth produce advantages of over 100% in most multi-threaded tests and over 160% in data compression, extended instructions, and integer math. The 350 W TDP and desktop sTR5 socket indicate this is a workstation-class part designed for sustained heavy loads. The Intel, with its 25 W TDP and mobile BGA 2540 socket, targets a different segment entirely. Its 16 threads and 18 MB L3 cannot match the AMD's throughput, and its closest recorded rivals are mobile processors like the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H.

The Intel does offer integrated Arc B390 graphics and a smaller physical footprint, which suits portable systems. Its 3 nm process node and lower TDP suggest better energy efficiency, though no power consumption benchmarks are recorded in the database. For users requiring integrated graphics or operating within a mobile power envelope, the Intel is a functional option. For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the data shows the AMD winning every test by substantial margins, with the smallest gap being 5% in prime number finding and the largest being 197.5% in extended instructions.