AMD Ryzen 7 160 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is completely one-sided. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus wins all 11 head-to-head tests recorded in the database, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 does not win a single test. This is not a close contest; the Intel part dominates across every workload category, from single-threaded operations to heavily parallel tasks.

The largest margins appear in floating-point mathematics. The Intel part scores 201773 in passmark_floating_point_math, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 6673, a delta of -96.7% from the AMD side. This indicates a massive advantage in scientific, engineering, and any FP-heavy workloads. Similarly, the prime-number finding test shows a delta of -91.7% (AMD at 43, Intel at 519), suggesting the Intel core architecture handles integer-heavy algorithmic loops far more efficiently.

The smallest gap is in passmark_single_thread, where the Intel part leads by -30.6% (AMD at 3435, Intel at 4951). Even here the Intel part is clearly ahead, but this is the closest comparison in the entire dataset. The single-threaded advantage is still significant, but it is the one metric where the AMD chip is not completely outclassed.

For multi-threaded work, the Intel part's 24 cores and 24 threads deliver a passmark_multithread score of 59439 versus the AMD's 12237, a delta of -79.4%. The data compression test shows a similar pattern: Intel at 658724, AMD at 242634, delta -63.2%. Data encryption (50008 vs 15520, delta -69%) and extended instructions (51290 vs 16170, delta -68.5%) follow the same trend.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160 does have one meaningful advantage in the broader competitive landscape: its average benchmark score of 37117 places it in the 85th percentile of all CPUs, and it sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H and within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Core i7-13700. This means the AMD part is a solid mid-range mobile processor, not a weak one. It is simply outclassed by the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus, which sits in the 95th percentile with an average score of 79574.

The verdict from the data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is in a different performance tier. The AMD part holds its own against its direct rivals, but it cannot compete with Intel's top-tier mobile offering in any recorded workload.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the superior processor for every measured workload. The Intel part's average benchmark score of 79574 places it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-14900KF (avgScore 79371, delta 0.3%), the Intel Core i9-14900K (avgScore 79097, delta 0.6%), and the AMD EPYC 7413 (avgScore 80041, delta -0.6%). The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus performs at the level of desktop flagship processors from a previous generation, which is remarkable for a mobile part.

The AMD Ryzen 7 160, with an average benchmark score of 37117, sits in the 85th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-13700 (avgScore 37135, delta 0%), the Intel Core i9-12900T (avgScore 37112, delta 0%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H (avgScore 37161, delta -0.1%). This means the AMD chip is a competent mid-range mobile processor, but it is roughly half as fast as the Intel part in average performance.

Who should pick which? The database shows that the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus is the choice for anyone who needs maximum performance in multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, physics simulations, or floating-point mathematics. Its 24 cores, 36 MB of shared L3 cache, and 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth all contribute to this outcome. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is the choice for a system where lower power consumption (28 W TDP versus 55 W TDP) is a higher priority than raw throughput. Its 8 cores and 16 threads with a 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are sufficient for everyday productivity, and its 85th percentile standing shows it is not a weak processor.

There is no scenario in the recorded data where the AMD part wins a benchmark. The Intel part is faster in single-threaded, multi-threaded, integer, floating-point, encryption, compression, and sorting workloads. The only reason to choose the AMD part would be the significantly lower TDP, which the database records at 28 W versus the Intel's 55 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive Intel win is in passmark_floating_point_math. The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 201773, the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 6673, and the delta is -96.7%. This is an enormous gap that indicates a completely different level of floating-point execution capability, likely driven by the Intel part's 24 cores and higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

The passmark_find_prime_numbers test also shows a dramatic divide. Intel scores 519, AMD scores 43, a delta of -91.7%. Prime-number finding is a latency-sensitive integer workload, and the Intel part's per-core performance advantage is evident here. This test often responds to single-core speed and efficient branch handling, and the Intel architecture, with its 5.50 GHz boost clock, clearly excels.

The passmark_multithread test shows Intel at 59439 versus AMD at 12237, a delta of -79.4%. This is a direct reflection of the core count difference: the Intel part has 24 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part also has 36 MB of shared L3 cache versus the AMD's 16 MB, which helps with data reuse across threads.

The passmark_physics test shows Intel at 3387 versus AMD at 793, a delta of -76.6%. Physics simulations are heavily parallel and benefit from high core counts and fast memory. The Intel part's 102.4 GB/s memory bandwidth is 33% higher than the AMD's 76.8 GB/s, and this likely contributes to the large margin.

The passmark_data_encryption test shows Intel at 50008 versus AMD at 15520, a delta of -69%. Encryption workloads often use AES-NI and other dedicated instructions, and the Intel part's extended instruction score (51290) is nearly 3.2 times higher than the AMD's (16170), suggesting a more advanced instruction execution pipeline.

The passmark_random_string_sorting test shows Intel at 80327 versus AMD at 25981, a delta of -67.7%. Sorting is memory-bound and benefits from large caches and high memory bandwidth. The Intel part's 36 MB L3 cache is more than double the AMD's 16 MB.

The passmark_extended_instructions test shows Intel at 51290 versus AMD at 16170, a delta of -68.5%. This covers AVX and other extended instruction sets, and the Intel part's lead here indicates superior SIMD throughput.

The passmark_data_compression test shows Intel at 658724 versus AMD at 242634, a delta of -63.2%. Compression is parallel and benefits from both core count and cache size.

The passmark_integer_math test shows Intel at 164839 versus AMD at 81370, a delta of -50.6%. This is the second-smallest margin, indicating that the AMD part's integer performance is relatively stronger than its floating-point performance.

The passmark_single_thread test shows Intel at 4951 versus AMD at 3435, a delta of -30.6%. This is the closest result in the entire comparison, but it still represents a clear Intel win. The Intel part's 5.50 GHz boost clock versus the AMD's 4.75 GHz boost clock aligns with this outcome.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has an average benchmark score of 79574, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 has an average score of 37117.

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus scores 4951 in passmark_single_thread, while the AMD Ryzen 7 160 scores 3435, a delta of -30.6% from the AMD side.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen 5?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus supports PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The AMD Ryzen 7 160 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different architectures. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 is built on the Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt-R, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arrow Lake-HX Refresh codename from the Core Ultra Series 2.

The manufacturing process also differs. The AMD part uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 3 nm process node from the same foundry. The Intel part's die size is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, while the AMD part's die size is 210 mm² with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache organization shows a clear difference in design philosophy. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part uses 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 3 MB of L2 cache per core, with 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's per-core L2 cache is 6 times larger, and its L3 cache is more than double the AMD's. Both processors support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, but the Intel part has a higher memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus the AMD's 76.8 GB/s.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 uses the Radeon 680M, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Both processors support ECC memory and are aimed at the mobile market segment. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious difference: the AMD Ryzen 7 160 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus has 24 cores and 24 threads. The base clocks are identical at 2.70 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: the AMD part boosts to 4.75 GHz, while the Intel part boosts to 5.50 GHz.

The TDP differs substantially. The AMD part is rated at 28 W, while the Intel part is rated at 55 W. This is a 27 W difference that affects thermal design and battery life in mobile systems.

The socket types are different. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2114. The AMD part's part number is 100-000000991(FP7r2), while the Intel part's part number is SADSS.

The process nodes differ: 6 nm for AMD, 3 nm for Intel. The Intel part has a larger die size (243 mm² versus 210 mm²) and a recorded transistor count of 17,800 million, while the AMD part has no transistor count in the database.

Memory bandwidth is higher on the Intel part (102.4 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s). PCIe support also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The release dates are different. The AMD Ryzen 7 160 was released on 2025-09-30, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 290HX Plus was released on 2026-03-16. Both are marked as Active in production status. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.