AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into clearly different usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 wins five head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 7 360 wins six. That near-even split hides a wide performance gap in the actual workloads, as each chip dominates in very different types of tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the stronger choice for integer-heavy and data-processing workloads. Its largest wins come in integer math, where it scores 81,370 against 34,238 for Intel, a 137.7% advantage. Data compression also goes strongly to AMD, with a score of 242,634 versus 142,877, a 69.8% margin. Data encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting all favor AMD as well, with margins of 39%, 30.5%, and 47.3% respectively. This pattern points to a processor that handles compression, encryption, parsing, and general integer manipulation with substantial headroom over its rival.

The Intel Core 7 360 counters with a very different strength profile. It wins in floating-point math by a massive margin, scoring 44,963 against 6,673 for AMD, an 85.2% gap in Intel's favor. Prime number finding also goes to Intel, 120 versus 43, a 64.2% lead. The Intel part takes the multithread test at 15,544 versus 12,237, a 21.3% margin, and the physics test at 1,213 versus 793, a 34.6% advantage. Single-thread performance also belongs to Intel, 4,274 versus 3,435, a 19.6% lead. The picture here is of a chip with superior per-core throughput, particularly in floating-point and single-threaded scenarios, plus an overall multithread score that outranks the AMD part despite having fewer cores and threads.

The percentile data reinforces this split. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 360 sits at the 72nd. The average benchmark score tells a different story, however: AMD averages 37,117, while Intel averages 18,374. That large average-score gap is driven by AMD's enormous wins in integer math and data compression, which pull its average up even though it loses the multithread and single-thread tests. The Intel part's wins are concentrated in tests where the absolute score differences are smaller in magnitude, so its average remains lower.

For users whose workloads involve compression, encryption, or integer-heavy processing, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the clear leader. For floating-point computation, physics simulation, prime-number workloads, and single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel Core 7 360 delivers the better results. The multithread score also favors Intel, which is notable given that the AMD chip has 8 cores and 16 threads against Intel's 6 cores and 6 threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 scores 4,274 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 19.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 160 at 3,435.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multithread performance?

A: The Intel Core 7 360 leads with a score of 15,544, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 12,237. Intel holds a 21.3% advantage despite having fewer cores and threads.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is far ahead, scoring 242,634 in PassMark data compression against 142,877 for Intel, a 69.8% margin.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in integer math, where the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 81,370 versus 34,238 for Intel, a 137.7% difference. The largest Intel win is in floating-point math, where it leads by 85.2% with 44,963 versus 6,673.

Q: How do their overall CPU percentiles compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 ranks at the 85th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 360 ranks at the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has an average benchmark score of 37,117, more than double the Intel Core 7 360's average of 18,374.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a pattern of extreme specialization. The AMD Ryzen 7 160's most dominant performance comes in integer math, where its 81,370 score dwarfs Intel's 34,238. That 137.7% delta is the largest of any test in the comparison. Data compression follows at 69.8% in AMD's favor, and random string sorting adds another 47.3% margin. These are not close contests; they represent workloads where the AMD architecture has a fundamental throughput advantage.

The Intel Core 7 360 answers with equally decisive wins in the floating-point arena. Its 44,963 floating-point score against AMD's 6,673 gives Intel an 85.2% edge, the largest Intel margin in the entire comparison. Prime number finding goes to Intel by 64.2%, and physics simulation by 34.6%. The Intel part also takes the multithread test by 21.3%, scoring 15,544 against 12,237, and the single-thread test by 19.6%, scoring 4,274 against 3,435.

The intermediate margins fill out the picture. AMD wins data encryption 15,520 to 11,164, a 39% lead, and extended instructions 16,170 to 12,390, a 30.5% lead. Intel's remaining win is in the duplicate single-thread listing, which confirms the same 19.6% margin as the primary single-thread test. The overall win count is close, five for AMD and six for Intel, but the magnitude of AMD's integer and compression wins is substantially larger than the magnitude of Intel's floating-point and single-thread wins.

In terms of aggregate scoring, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 reaches an average benchmark score of 37,117, placing it at the 85th percentile. The Intel Core 7 360 averages 18,374, at the 72nd percentile. The AMD part's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37,112, the Intel Core i7-13700 at 37,135, and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37,093. The Intel Core 7 360's nearest rivals are far lower, including the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18,380 and the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18,318. This places the two chips in entirely different performance strata by average score, even though the head-to-head tests show Intel winning the multithread and single-thread categories.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 360 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has no hyperthreading equivalent in the Intel chip, as Intel's thread count equals its core count. Base clocks differ substantially, with AMD at 2.70 GHz and Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 4.75 GHz and Intel at 4.80 GHz, giving Intel a marginal 0.05 GHz boost advantage.

Thermal design power favors Intel, which is rated at 15 W against AMD's 28 W. The sockets are incompatible: AMD uses AMD Socket FP7, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1516. Memory support differs as well. AMD supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while Intel provides Gen 4 with only 6 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics differ completely, with AMD using Radeon 680M and Intel using Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD part is a mobile processor with a launch date of September 30, 2025, while Intel's mobile part launches April 15, 2026. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part number is 100-000000991 (FP7r2), and the Intel part number is SAE3E. The Intel Core 7 360 has a recorded launch MSRP of $426, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Cache configurations are fundamentally different. AMD uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's per-core L1 and L2 allocations are larger, but AMD's total L3 is larger by 10 MB.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two chips is significant. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Zen 3+ architecture under the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename under the Core 5 generation, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 6 nm versus 3 nm, which helps explain Intel's lower 15 W TDP despite a higher boost clock.

AMD's Zen 3+ design relies on 8 cores with simultaneous multithreading, giving it 16 threads for parallel workloads. The die size is recorded at 210 mm². Intel's Wildcat Lake uses 6 cores with no multithreading, so its 6 threads equal its core count. No die size is recorded for the Intel part. The cache hierarchy reflects these design choices: AMD distributes smaller per-core caches with a larger shared L3, while Intel gives each core a much larger L2 allocation of 2.5 MB and a smaller 6 MB shared L3.

The integrated graphics differ by vendor generation. AMD pairs the CPU with Radeon 680M graphics, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Both target the mobile market segment and both are listed as active in production. The AMD part carries the Rembrandt-R codename within the Zen 3+ family, while Intel's Wildcat Lake represents a newer process generation. Memory controller design also diverges, with AMD using dual-channel DDR5 and Intel using single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X, which affects the recorded bandwidth figures of 76.8 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

The architecture differences map directly onto the benchmark results. AMD's larger thread count and dual-channel memory feed its integer and compression wins, while Intel's newer 3 nm process and larger per-core cache support its floating-point and single-thread dominance. The 6 nm versus 3 nm process gap also shows in the power envelopes, with Intel delivering a higher boost clock at a lower TDP.