AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a one-sided picture. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 does not win a single recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The Intel part wins all 11 shared benchmarks in the database. This is not a close contest by any metric, and the margin of victory varies by workload type.

The smallest gap appears in single-threaded performance. In the Passmark single-thread test, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 against the AMD Ryzen 7 160's 3435, a 26.9% advantage. That is the narrowest margin recorded between the two. The largest gap is in floating-point math, where the Intel part scores 159824 versus 6673, a 95.8% deficit for the AMD chip. This suggests the Intel processor has a decisive advantage in workloads that rely on heavy mathematical computation.

The multithreaded Passmark score for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is 50146, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 manages 12237. That is a 75.6% difference. The data compression test shows a similar pattern: Intel scores 553155 against AMD's 242634, a 56.1% gap. Encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting all favor Intel by margins between 61.3% and 62.4%. Prime number finding shows a 90.5% deficit for the AMD part, and physics simulation shows a 75.1% deficit.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 sits at the 85th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 37117. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile, with an average score of 66159. The nearest rivals for the AMD part include the Intel Core i9-12900T at 37112, the Intel Core i7-13700 at 37135, the AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 at 37093, and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H at 37161. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66099, the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66855, and the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and target different market segments. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is a mobile processor using the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename. It uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC and has a die size of 210 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor using the Arrow Lake Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2 family. It uses a 3 nm process node from TSMC and has a die size of 243 mm². The Intel part contains 17,800 million transistors; the AMD part does not have a recorded transistor count in the database.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. This means the Intel part has no hyperthreading-style thread duplication; each core contributes one thread. Despite this, the Intel part still produces far higher multithreaded scores, which suggests the raw core count and per-core efficiency carry the load.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has more L3 cache at 30 MB shared, versus 16 MB shared on the AMD part. The Intel part also has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations.

Clock speeds favor the Intel part. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.75 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Intel part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851.

Memory support is DDR5 for both, and both use dual-channel memory buses. The AMD part has a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the Intel part has 115.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part includes integrated graphics in the form of a Radeon 680M, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Power figures are not directly comparable in the database. The AMD part has a TDP of 28, which aligns with its mobile segment designation. The Intel part has a TDP of 125, consistent with a desktop part. The release dates differ: the AMD part was released on September 30, 2025, and the Intel part on March 10, 2026. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4698 in the Passmark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 3435. The Intel part leads by 26.9%.

Q: How does the multithreaded performance compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 50146 in the Passmark multithread test, against 12237 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160. That is a 75.6% advantage for the Intel part.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 7 160 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus have ECC memory support recorded in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 includes a Radeon 680M integrated GPU. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics, listed as N/A.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 76.8 GB/s. Both use dual-channel DDR5 memory.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has an average benchmark score of 37117 and sits at the 85th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has an average score of 66159 and sits at the 93rd percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. Base clock speeds are 2.70 GHz for the AMD part and 4.20 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 4.75 GHz for the AMD part and 5.30 GHz for the Intel part. The TDP values are 28 for the AMD part and 125 for the Intel part.

The socket types differ: AMD Socket FP7 for the AMD part, Intel Socket 1851 for the Intel part. The AMD part uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename. The Intel part uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename. Process nodes differ: 6 nm for the AMD part, 3 nm for the Intel part, both from TSMC. The AMD die size is 210 mm², while the Intel die size is 243 mm². The Intel part has a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million; the AMD part has none recorded.

Cache configurations differ at every level. L1 is 64 KB per core for the AMD part versus 192 KB per core for the Intel part. L2 is 512 KB per core for the AMD part versus 3 MB per core for the Intel part. L3 is 16 MB shared for the AMD part versus 30 MB shared for the Intel part. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s for the AMD part versus 115.2 GB/s for the Intel part. PCIe generation differs: Gen 4 for the AMD part, Gen 5 for the Intel part, both with 20 CPU lanes.

The AMD part has integrated graphics with a Radeon 680M. The Intel part has no integrated graphics. The AMD part does not have an unlocked multiplier; the Intel part does. The AMD part is a mobile processor, while the Intel part is a desktop processor. The AMD part was released on September 30, 2025, and the Intel part on March 10, 2026. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data in the database covers 11 tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins all of them. The largest margin is in floating-point math, where the Intel part scores 159824 versus 6673 for the AMD Ryzen 7 160, a 95.8% difference. This is the most lopsided result in the comparison. The second-largest margin is in prime number finding: Intel scores 452, AMD scores 43, a 90.5% deficit for the AMD part.

The multithread and physics tests show similar dominance. In the Passmark multithread test, Intel scores 50146 against 12237, a 75.6% gap. In physics, Intel scores 3183 against 793, a 75.1% gap. Encryption shows Intel at 41292 and AMD at 15520, a 62.4% gap. Extended instructions show Intel at 42880 and AMD at 16170, a 62.3% gap. Random string sorting shows Intel at 67209 and AMD at 25981, a 61.3% gap.

Data compression is closer but still clearly in Intel's favor: Intel scores 553155, AMD scores 242634, a 56.1% gap. Integer math shows Intel at 123030 and AMD at 81370, a 33.9% gap. The narrowest margin is in the single-thread test, where Intel scores 4698 and AMD scores 3435, a 26.9% gap. The duplicate Passmark single-thread entry confirms the same result.

The average benchmark scores align with this pattern. The Intel part averages 66159 across all recorded benchmarks, while the AMD part averages 37117. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65914, which the Intel part edges by 0.4%. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700 at 37135, which slightly edges the AMD part's 37117 average.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 160 across every recorded benchmark in the database. The Intel part holds a 26.9% lead in single-threaded performance and a 75.6% lead in multithreaded performance. In floating-point math, the Intel part is 95.8% ahead, the largest recorded margin. The AMD part does not win any of the 11 shared tests.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 belongs to a different market segment. It is a mobile processor with a 28 TDP, integrated Radeon 680M graphics, and a 6 nm process node. Its average benchmark score of 37117 places it at the 85th percentile, near the Intel Core i7-13700 and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is a desktop processor with a 125 TDP, no integrated graphics, and a 3 nm process node. Its average score of 66159 places it at the 93rd percentile, near the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

Users looking at the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus will get higher clock speeds, more cores, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 5 support. Users looking at the AMD Ryzen 7 160 will get a lower-power mobile part with integrated graphics and a smaller die. The benchmark results indicate that the Intel part is the stronger processor in every measured category, with the smallest gap appearing in single-threaded workloads. The AMD part's only advantage in the recorded data is its lower TDP and its integrated GPU, neither of which appears in the performance benchmarks.