AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear hierarchical split between these two mobile processors. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins 14 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 secures a single victory. The Intel part holds an average benchmark score of 44466 against 38221 for the AMD, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs versus the 86th percentile for the AMD. The data indicates the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the stronger overall performer for users prioritizing raw compute throughput, particularly in threaded workloads, physics simulation, and floating-point operations. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 remains relevant for scenarios where its specific architectural strengths, such as integer math performance, take priority, or where the lower thermal envelope suits a particular chassis design. The benchmark results do not support the AMD part as a general-purpose performance leader against this specific Intel offering; the deltas in multi-core and single-core tests are substantial and consistently favor Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H dominates the majority of computational categories. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18911 against 14676 for the AMD, a 22.4% advantage. Single-core performance follows the same pattern, with the Intel part scoring 2200.5 versus 1715 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 22.1% lead. The Intel processor also excels in memory bandwidth-sensitive operations, with a 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth specification compared to 89.6 GB/s for the AMD. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to its performance in data compression, where it scores 361763 versus 300708, a 16.9% lead.

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 claims one benchmark win: PassMark integer math, scoring 91565 against 90882 for the Intel, a marginal 0.8% advantage. This is the only recorded metric where the AMD part leads. The AMD processor also operates at a lower 28 W TDP compared to 25 W for the Intel part, although the Intel chip delivers substantially higher performance despite a nominally similar power envelope. For workloads dominated by encryption, the Intel part leads by 38% in PassMark data encryption (28490 versus 17661). For physics calculations, the Intel part scores 3226 against 1147, a 64.4% lead. The Intel processor is the clear choice for rendering, compression, encryption, and any workload that scales with core count or memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses the Zen 4 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. It features 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process node, featuring 16 cores and 16 threads. Its base clock is 2.10 GHz with the same 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Intel part carries a larger cache configuration: 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

The memory subsystems differ notably. The AMD processor supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel processor supports LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part's 71% higher memory bandwidth specification likely explains part of its performance advantage in memory-intensive workloads. PCIe support also diverges: the AMD processor offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel processor offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Both parts integrate graphics, with the AMD using Radeon 780M and the Intel using Arc B390. The Intel part has a newer release date of 2026-01-04 versus 2025-01-05 for the AMD processor. Neither part supports ECC memory, and both use a mobile socket, AMD Socket FP8 for the AMD and Intel BGA 2540 for the Intel. The Intel part has 16 cores but only 16 threads, indicating a hybrid architecture without hyperthreading across all cores, while the AMD part has 8 cores with 16 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading on every core.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel processor in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 18911 in Cinebench R23 multi-core compared to 14676 for the AMD Ryzen 7 250, a 22.4% lead.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 7 250 wins the PassMark integer math test with a score of 91565 versus 90882 for the Intel part, a 0.8% margin.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H supports LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their single-thread scores compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H scores 2200.5 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 4280 in PassMark single-thread. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 scores 1715 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 3678 in PassMark single-thread.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses a 3 nm process node from Intel foundry. The AMD Ryzen 7 250 uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent pattern of Intel superiority across nearly every measured category. The largest single delta appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel processor scores 358 against 73 for the AMD, a 79.6% advantage. This extreme gap suggests the Intel architecture handles this specific integer-heavy workload with dramatically greater efficiency. Floating-point math shows the next largest gap, with the Intel part scoring 112550 versus 53285 for the AMD, a 52.7% lead. The PassMark physics test follows closely, with the Intel part scoring 3226 versus 1147, a 64.4% advantage. These three tests indicate the Intel processor's advantage is not limited to multi-threaded scaling but extends to per-core computational throughput.

The Cinebench results confirm this pattern across both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel part scores 2955 versus 2302, a 22.1% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 18911 versus 14676, a 22.4% lead. Single-core results are similarly lopsided: Cinebench R15 single-core shows 309.5 versus 269, a 13.1% lead, while Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2200.5 versus 1715, a 22.1% lead. The consistent single-core advantage suggests the Intel architecture delivers higher instructions per clock or benefits from its higher cache capacities per core.

The PassMark suite reinforces the multi-threaded advantage. PassMark multithread scores 36811 for the Intel part versus 25089 for the AMD, a 31.8% lead. PassMark data encryption shows 28490 versus 17661, a 38% lead. PassMark extended instructions scores 29943 versus 21613, a 27.8% lead. PassMark random string sorting shows 44010 versus 35861, an 18.5% lead. PassMark data compression shows 361763 versus 300708, a 16.9% lead. PassMark single-thread scores 4280 versus 3678, a 14.1% lead. The only AMD victory, PassMark integer math, comes with a 0.8% margin, which falls within run-to-run variance for most benchmarking scenarios.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H also sits in a different performance tier among its nearest rivals. Its average score of 44466 places it 0.2% below the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D, 0.3% above the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.4% above the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, and 0.5% above the Intel Core i5-13600. The AMD Ryzen 7 250, with an average score of 38221, sits 0.1% above the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, 0.1% below the Intel Core i5-13600HX, 0.2% above the Intel Core i5-14490F, and 0.2% below the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H. These positioning data indicate the AMD part competes with mid-range desktop and mobile parts, while the Intel part sits near the upper echelon of mobile processors.

The aggregate data tells a straightforward story. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H delivers meaningfully higher performance in 14 of 15 recorded benchmarks, with advantages ranging from 13.1% to 79.6%. The AMD Ryzen 7 250's single win in integer math is too narrow to offset the broad performance deficit elsewhere. The Intel part's higher memory bandwidth, larger cache hierarchy, and 16-core configuration give it a structural advantage that the AMD part cannot overcome despite its higher base clock and smaller process node. The recorded measurements indicate the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the superior choice for compute-intensive mobile workloads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 remains a viable alternative only for scenarios narrowly focused on integer math performance or for systems constrained to its specific power and thermal profile.