AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 and the Intel Core 7 251TE is lopsided, with Intel taking 12 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests. The AMD part wins only three: extended instructions, single-thread PassMark, and the duplicate singlethread PassMark record. That narrow set of wins points to a specific strength: lightly threaded integer work where AMD's Zen 5 cores show an edge. The single-thread PassMark score of 3875 versus 3568 gives AMD an 8.6% advantage, and the extended instructions result is essentially a tie at 0.2% ahead.

The Intel Core 7 251TE dominates everywhere else, and the margins are substantial. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 25518 against AMD's 11461, a 55.1% gap. The single-core R23 test shows Intel ahead by 49.5% with 3602 versus 1818. Those are not small differences; they indicate a processor that simply has more resources to throw at sustained workloads. PassMark integer math goes to Intel by 49.5% (125739 versus 63475), floating-point math by 50.2% (85607 versus 42621), and prime numbers by 55.7% (140 versus 62). Data compression favors Intel by 29%, encryption by 46.7%, multithread by 33.6%, physics by 43.8%, and random string sorting by 35.8%.

What does this mean for use cases? The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 is a mobile chip, built for efficiency and reasonable single-core responsiveness. Its wins in single-thread PassMark and extended instructions suggest it handles everyday interactive tasks, scripting, and lightly threaded applications with a slight edge over Intel. The Intel part, a desktop processor with 24 cores and 32 threads, is built for throughput. Any workload that scales across cores, rendering, compiling, scientific computing, data processing, will favor Intel by a wide margin. The data shows no scenario where AMD wins a heavily threaded test. Even the closest Intel win, data compression at 29% ahead, is a comfortable margin.

The average benchmark score tells the same story: Intel sits at 41650, AMD at 29461. Intel's percentile rank is 88 versus AMD's 81, meaning Intel outperforms a larger share of all recorded CPUs. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce the positioning. AMD's closest competitor is the Ryzen 7 3800X at 29447, a 0% delta, and the EPYC 9654 at 29409, just 0.2% behind. Intel's nearest rival is the Core Ultra 7 265H at 41621, a 0.1% delta, and the Core i7-14650HX at 41576, 0.2% behind. Both chips sit in their respective performance tiers, but those tiers are far apart.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and fabrication nodes. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. That node difference explains some of the power and efficiency characteristics, though the database does not record direct power measurements beyond TDP. AMD's TDP is 28 watts, Intel's is 45 watts. Both are socketed parts, but not interchangeable: AMD uses Socket FP8, Intel uses Socket 1700.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has 6 cores and 12 threads, built on the Krackan Point codename with a generation identifier of Ryzen AI 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c). The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, based on Bartlett Lake and the Core 7 generation. That core count difference is the primary driver of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. More cores mean more parallel execution units, and Intel's 24 cores overwhelm AMD's 6 in any test that scales.

Cache hierarchies also differ. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of L3. Intel provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a much larger 36 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on Intel helps with data reuse across cores, which is relevant for multi-threaded workloads that share data structures. AMD's smaller L3 may limit its ability to keep frequently accessed data on-chip, though its single-thread PassMark win suggests the core design itself is efficient.

Memory support shows both similarities and differences. Both support dual-channel memory and have a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. AMD supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR4 and DDR5. ECC memory is available on Intel but not on AMD. PCIe connectivity differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes, Intel offers Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics also differ: AMD uses Radeon 840M, Intel uses UHD Graphics 770.

Clock speeds favor Intel on paper. Intel's base clock is 1.40 GHz with a boost of 5.40 GHz, while AMD's base is 2.00 GHz with a boost of 4.60 GHz. The higher boost clock on Intel helps explain its single-core Cinebench wins, though the PassMark single-thread test goes to AMD. Die size is recorded for Intel at 215 mm², while AMD's die size is not listed. Intel's production status is Active, as is AMD's. Release dates are close: Intel on January 12, 2025, AMD on January 14, 2025.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by market segment. AMD markets the Ryzen AI 7 345 as a mobile processor, and its 28-watt TDP, LPDDR5X support, and Socket FP8 all fit a laptop or compact system design. Intel markets the Core 7 251TE as a desktop part with a 45-watt TDP and Socket 1700. Anyone choosing between these two should first decide the form factor, because the sockets and power envelopes are not interchangeable.

From a pure performance standpoint, the Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger processor in the database. It wins 12 of 15 head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score (41650 versus 29461), and ranks in the 88th percentile versus AMD's 81st. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 25518 is more than double AMD's 11461, and the single-core R23 score of 3602 is nearly double AMD's 1818. For any multi-threaded desktop workload, Intel is the choice.

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 wins only the PassMark single-thread test (3875 versus 3568) and extended instructions (17003 versus 16974). Those wins are real but narrow. The single-thread advantage of 8.6% suggests AMD has a more efficient core design for lightly threaded tasks, which matters for responsive single-application use. The extended instructions result is effectively a tie, a 0.2% difference that could be run-to-run variance.

The database shows no scenario where AMD wins a multi-threaded test. The closest Intel margin in a multi-threaded test is data compression at 29%, followed by multithread at 33.6%. Those are not competitive margins. The verdict is straightforward: pick the AMD for mobile efficiency and a slight single-thread edge, pick the Intel for desktop throughput and multi-threaded dominance. The Intel part also has a launch MSRP of $384, which is the only pricing data recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: It depends on the test. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 wins PassMark single-thread with 3875 versus 3568, an 8.6% edge. The Intel Core 7 251TE wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 3602 versus 1818, a 49.5% margin.

Q: How big is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE leads by 55.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (25518 versus 11461) and by 33.6% in PassMark multithread (30022 versus 19927).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 has 4 MB of L3.

Q: What memory types does each support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 345 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5. Both have dual-channel memory buses with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the largest single gap. Intel scores 25518, AMD scores 11461, a 55.1% difference. That is the defining result for this comparison. The Intel part has four times the cores, and the benchmark reflects that advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test also goes to Intel, 3602 versus 1818, a 49.5% margin. That is surprising given AMD's PassMark single-thread win, but the two tests measure different instruction mixes.

PassMark integer math goes to Intel by 49.5% (125739 versus 63475). This is a heavy throughput test, and Intel's core count dominates. Floating-point math is even more lopsided: Intel scores 85607, AMD scores 42621, a 50.2% gap. Prime number finding shows Intel at 140 versus AMD's 62, a 55.7% margin. These are the kinds of workloads where core count and cache size matter most.

Data encryption favors Intel by 46.7% (22176 versus 11814). Data compression favors Intel by 29% (334399 versus 237484). Physics simulation goes to Intel by 43.8% (1938 versus 1089). Random string sorting shows Intel at 39643 versus AMD's 25435, a 35.8% margin. The multithread test, which is a general parallel workload, gives Intel 30022 versus AMD's 19927, a 33.6% advantage.

The AMD wins are confined to two tests. PassMark single-thread shows AMD at 3875 versus Intel's 3568, an 8.6% lead. Extended instructions, which measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, shows AMD at 17003 versus Intel's 16974, a 0.2% lead. That is the only test where the two are essentially tied. The Cinebench R15 results follow the same pattern as R23: Intel wins multi-core by 33.4% (2572 versus 1712) and single-core by 25.1% (362 versus 271).

The overall win count is 12 for Intel and 3 for AMD. The average benchmark scores, 41650 for Intel and 29461 for AMD, place them in different performance classes. Intel's percentile rank of 88 versus AMD's 81 confirms that Intel sits higher in the global distribution of all recorded CPUs. The nearest rivals for each show they are competitive within their respective tiers: AMD is within 0.7% of the Ryzen 7 PRO 5755GE and 0.2% of the EPYC 9654, while Intel is within 0.6% of the Core i7-14700T and 0.1% of the Core Ultra 7 265H. Those deltas are small, meaning both chips are well-matched to their immediate competition. The gap between the two processors themselves, however, is not small.