AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core 7 350 Comparison

AMD Ryzen 7 160 and Intel Core 7 350 are both active mobile processors, yet the benchmark data shows two very distinct performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 160, built on the Zen 3+ architecture, holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 85 compared to Intel's 71, but the Intel Core 7 350 counters with a higher average benchmark score in its own right. The head-to-head results show a split decision, with each processor dominating entirely different workloads. The following analysis breaks down the recorded measurements to clarify where each part excels and where it falls behind.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a stark division of labor between these two chips. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 wins 5 of the 11 recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core 7 350 wins 6. The margins of victory, however, are not symmetrical. AMD's largest win comes in integer math, where the Ryzen 7 160 scores 81,370 against Intel's 33,734, a massive 141.2% lead. This is the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression also heavily favors AMD: 242,634 versus 143,123, a 69.5% advantage. The Ryzen part also leads in random string sorting by 50.7%, scoring 25,981 to Intel's 17,238. In data encryption, AMD's 15,520 beats Intel's 10,933 by 42%. Extended instructions round out AMD's wins, with a 34.2% lead at 16,170 versus 12,045.

The Intel Core 7 350 wins the other side of the ledger, and its victories are equally decisive. Floating point math is the most dramatic: Intel scores 42,809 compared to AMD's 6,673, an 84.4% margin. This is remarkable, as it represents a workload where the Intel part is more than six times faster. Prime number finding also heavily favors Intel, with a score of 107 versus AMD's 43, a 59.8% advantage. In the multithread test, Intel leads with 15,170 against AMD's 12,237, a 19.3% margin. Physics simulation goes to Intel at 1,173 versus 793, a 32.4% lead. Single-thread performance also belongs to Intel, with a score of 4,100 compared to AMD's 3,435, a 16.2% advantage.

Looking at the aggregate scores, the Intel Core 7 350 records an average benchmark score of 17,779, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 posts 37,117. These averages are not directly comparable across the full set of tests, as the AMD part's extreme scores in integer math and data compression inflate its average. The nearest rival data for the Intel Core 7 350 places it within 0.7% of the Intel Core 5 120U, which scores 17,898, and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT at 17,891. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H, which scores 37,161.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename, manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 350 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, manufactured on a 3 nm process at Intel. The process node advantage belongs to Intel, though the architectural designs diverge considerably in core configuration.

The AMD part offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part provides 6 cores and 6 threads. This means the Ryzen 7 160 has both more physical cores and simultaneous multithreading, whereas the Core 7 350 has no hyperthreading capability. Clock speeds tell a different story. The Ryzen 7 160 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz. The Core 7 350 has a lower base clock of 1.50 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Intel part can reach a slightly higher peak frequency, which aligns with its single-thread benchmark advantage.

Cache hierarchies are also markedly different. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 350 uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 6 MB of shared L3. Intel's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches contribute to its strong single-thread and floating point results. AMD's larger L3 pool supports its multi-threaded integer and compression workloads.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD part supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only over a single-channel memory bus, with a lower memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is not supported on the Intel part. PCIe lanes also differ: AMD offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 4 with only 6 lanes. The integrated graphics differ, with AMD using Radeon 680M and Intel using Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

The thermal design power figures are close but favor Intel. The Intel Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a TDP of 28 watts. This is a notable difference in power envelope, though the actual power consumption in any given workload is not measured here. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $469. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Release dates differ, with the Intel part releasing later, but the exact dates are not relevant to performance analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the clear winner in integer-heavy, data-dense workloads. The 141.2% lead in integer math indicates a processor designed for tasks that involve large-scale arithmetic operations on whole numbers. The 69.5% advantage in data compression and 50.7% lead in random string sorting suggest strong performance in file archiving, database operations, and text processing. The 42% edge in data encryption points to solid performance in security-related tasks such as VPN throughput, disk encryption, and secure communication protocols. The extended instructions test, where AMD leads by 34.2%, covers advanced instruction set extensions that benefit specific computational tasks.

The Intel Core 7 350 takes the lead in floating point math by an enormous 84.4% margin. This workload is heavily used in scientific computing, 3D rendering, physics simulations, and financial modeling. The 59.8% lead in prime number finding indicates strong performance in cryptographic key generation and certain mathematical algorithms. The multithread win of 19.3% is interesting given that the Intel part has fewer threads overall, suggesting that its individual cores are more efficient in this particular test. The physics test, where Intel leads by 32.4%, reinforces the floating point dominance.

Single-thread performance is a clear Intel strength. The 16.2% lead in both single-thread and singlethread tests indicates better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications such as web browsing, office productivity, and legacy software. The higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.75 GHz, combined with larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, explains this advantage. The lower base clock of 1.50 GHz is a tradeoff that allows the Intel part to maintain a lower 15-watt TDP while still reaching high peak frequencies.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear choice based on workload profile. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 should be selected for tasks dominated by integer arithmetic, data compression, encryption, and string sorting. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration and larger L3 cache make it the stronger choice for multi-threaded data processing. The 141.2% lead in integer math and 69.5% lead in data compression are decisive margins that no amount of single-thread performance can overcome in those specific workloads.

The Intel Core 7 350 should be selected for floating point intensive applications, physics simulation, and single-threaded responsiveness. The 84.4% lead in floating point math is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and the 32.4% lead in physics confirms this strength. The 16.2% single-thread advantage makes it the better option for everyday computing tasks that rely on single-core performance. The lower 15-watt TDP also positions it favorably for power-constrained designs.

The overall percentile rankings favor AMD at 85 versus Intel at 71, but this metric aggregates across all CPU types and does not reflect the workload-specific strengths shown in the head-to-head data. The nearest rival data shows the AMD part competing with desktop-class processors like the Intel Core i7-13700, which scores 37,135, while the Intel part aligns with lower-tier mobile and desktop chips like the Intel Core 5 120U at 17,898. The choice comes down to which performance profile matches the intended use case.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 7 350 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in floating point math?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 leads by 84.4%, scoring 42,809 versus the AMD Ryzen 7 160's 6,673.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 leads by 69.5%, scoring 242,634 versus the Intel Core 7 350's 143,123.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 scores 4,100 in the single-thread test, 16.2% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 160's 3,435.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports ECC memory with dual-channel DDR5 at 76.8 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 350 does not support ECC and uses single-channel memory at 59.7 GB/s.

Q: How do the thermal design power ratings compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 350 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a TDP of 28 watts.