AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep. The Intel Core 7 360 wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 5 40. The largest margins appear in multi-core rendering workloads, where the Intel part leads by substantial percentages.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core 7 360 scores 13,634 against the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 4,841, a delta of -64.5% from the AMD side, meaning the Intel processor delivers roughly 2.8 times the multi-threaded rendering performance. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result follows the same pattern: Intel scores 1,374 versus AMD's 790, a 42.5% deficit for the AMD part.

Single-core performance also favors Intel, though by a smaller margin in some tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel at 1,924 versus AMD's 1,150, a 40.2% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core has Intel at 193 versus AMD's 165.5, a 14.2% difference. The PassMark single-thread test shows Intel at 4,274 versus AMD's 2,477, a 42% deficit for AMD.

Floating-point math demonstrates one of the steepest divides. The Intel Core 7 360 scores 44,963 in PassMark floating-point math, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 manages 15,194, a 66.2% gap. Prime number finding shows Intel at 120 versus AMD's 20, an 83.3% deficit, the largest relative difference in the entire comparison.

Extended instructions follow with Intel at 12,390 versus AMD's 6,437, a 48% gap. Data encryption shows Intel at 11,164 versus AMD's 6,646, a 40.5% deficit. The PassMark physics test has Intel at 1,213 versus AMD's 432, a 64.4% gap, closely matching the multi-core rendering margins.

Some workloads show a closer contest. PassMark integer math has Intel at 34,238 versus AMD's 31,598, only a 7.7% difference. Data compression is nearly tied: Intel scores 142,877 against AMD's 141,533, a 0.9% edge. Random string sorting shows Intel at 17,636 versus AMD's 15,124, a 14.2% gap. PassMark multi-thread has Intel at 15,544 versus AMD's 9,341, a 39.9% deficit.

The average benchmark score reflects this overall dominance. The Intel Core 7 360 records an average score of 18,374, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 averages 15,882, sitting in the 70th percentile. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18,345 (0.2% delta), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318 (0.3% delta), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18,302 (0.4% delta). The AMD part's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 75F3 at 15,859 (0.1% delta), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U at 15,910 (-0.2% delta), the AMD EPYC 9354P at 15,826 (0.4% delta), and the AMD EPYC 9334 at 15,940 (-0.4% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The AMD die measures 100 mm², while the Intel die size is not recorded in the database.

Core counts differ fundamentally. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no multithreading. Despite fewer threads per core, the Intel part's two additional physical cores contribute to its multi-core advantage.

Cache configurations show distinct strategies. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 360 offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, combined with more L3, support its single-thread and multi-thread performance.

Clock speeds favor Intel in boost but AMD in base. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz. The Intel Core 7 360 has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost of 4.80 GHz. Both are rated at 15 W TDP.

Memory support differs substantially. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses dual-channel LPDDR5 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 88.0 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but operates in single-channel mode, with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The AMD part's wider memory bus gives it a bandwidth advantage, though this does not translate into benchmark wins.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 provides Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 7 360 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Neither supports ECC memory. The AMD part integrates Radeon 610M graphics, while the Intel part integrates Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores.

Socket and release data place these in different platforms. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 uses AMD Socket FT6 and was released on September 30, 2025. The Intel Core 7 360 uses Intel BGA 1516 and was released on April 15, 2026. Both are listed as Active production and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part carries part number SAE3E.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the Intel Core 7 360 a win in every recorded category, but the magnitude of the advantage varies by workload type. The largest gaps appear in multi-core rendering, physics simulation, and floating-point math, suggesting the Intel part's additional physical cores and higher boost clock drive substantial throughput gains in parallel workloads.

Multi-core rendering is the clearest strength for the Intel part. The 64.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 42.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core indicate that content creation tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and batch image processing would see major gains. The PassMark physics score, with a 64.4% deficit for AMD, reinforces this pattern for simulation-heavy applications.

Floating-point math shows a 66.2% gap in favor of Intel, pointing to strong performance in scientific computing, financial modeling, and other numerically intensive workloads. The extended instructions test, with a 48% gap, further supports the Intel part's advantage in SIMD-heavy code.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 keeps the closest margins in integer-heavy and compression workloads. Integer math shows only a 7.7% gap, and data compression shows a 0.9% gap. These results suggest that for basic office productivity, database operations, and general integer processing, the two parts perform at a similar level, despite the Intel part's overall dominance.

Single-thread performance shows a mixed picture. The Cinebench R15 single-core gap is only 14.2%, but the Cinebench R23 single-core gap is 40.2%, and the PassMark single-thread gap is 42%. The Intel part's higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 4.30 GHz appears to provide a consistent single-thread advantage, though the magnitude varies depending on the test's sensitivity to clock speed versus IPC.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40's dual-channel memory interface, with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's 59.7 GB/s, does not appear in any benchmark as a winning margin for AMD. The data shows no test where the AMD part outperforms the Intel part, even in memory-sensitive workloads like data compression.

The Verdict

The database shows a clear overall winner. The Intel Core 7 360 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 40 in every recorded benchmark, with an average score of 18,374 versus 15,882, an 11.8% overall advantage. The Intel part also holds a higher percentile ranking at 72 versus 70.

For users prioritizing multi-core rendering, physics simulation, or floating-point math, the Intel Core 7 360 is the only choice supported by the data. The 64.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and the 66.2% lead in floating-point math are substantial enough to translate into meaningful time savings in professional workloads.

For users running mostly integer-based or compression-heavy tasks, the two parts are closer. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 trails by only 7.7% in integer math and 0.9% in data compression, making the difference less noticeable in these specific scenarios. However, the Intel part still wins these tests, so there is no benchmark-based reason to prefer the AMD part.

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 does offer a dual-channel memory interface with higher recorded bandwidth, which may matter for certain system-level configurations, but no benchmark in the database reflects a performance benefit from this feature. The Intel Core 7 360's launch MSRP is $426, which can be stated once for reference.

The Intel Core 7 360 is the data-supported pick across all measured workloads. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 remains competitive in narrow integer and compression segments, but the Intel part's consistent wins across 15 benchmarks, including several with margins above 40%, leave no ambiguity in the recorded results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 wins all 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 records no wins.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core 7 360 scores 120 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 20, an 83.3% deficit for AMD.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core 7 360 scores 13,634 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 40's 4,841, a 64.5% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 1,374 versus AMD's 790, a 42.5% lead.

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD Ryzen 5 40 comes close to the Intel Core 7 360?

A: Yes. In PassMark data compression, Intel scores 142,877 versus AMD's 141,533, a 0.9% gap. In PassMark integer math, Intel scores 34,238 versus AMD's 31,598, a 7.7% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 averages 18,374, placing in the 72nd percentile. The AMD Ryzen 5 40 averages 15,882, placing in the 70th percentile.