AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 vs Intel Processor N150 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two processors comes from different test suites, which limits direct score-to-score comparisons. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 was measured with PassMark tests, while the Intel Processor N150 was measured with Cinebench tests. However, the average benchmark scores provide a clear starting point. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 records an average benchmark score of 62498, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Processor N150 records an average benchmark score of 1025, placing it in the 28th percentile.

The gap in average score is substantial. The AMD part sits alongside much higher-performance desktop and mobile processors. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX with an average score of 62738, which is only 0.4% ahead, and the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 at 62839, which is 0.5% ahead. The Intel Core i9-13900KF trails the AMD part by 1.1% with a score of 61841. These figures indicate that the Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 performs in the company of premium multi-core processors, not entry-level parts.

The Intel Processor N150, by contrast, sits in an entirely different performance class. Its nearest rivals are older or lower-tier processors. The AMD Phenom II X6 1075T scores 1024, just 0.1% behind the N150. The Intel Core i3-4340 scores 1026, 0.1% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U also scores 1024, 0.1% behind, and the Intel Core i7-5650U scores 1027, 0.2% ahead. The data shows that the N150 performs at the level of processors from roughly a decade ago, not modern high-end silicon.

Looking at the AMD processor's individual PassMark results, the strongest showing is in data compression, where it scores 385174. Data encryption reaches 19308, extended instructions score 26441, and random string sorting scores 40860. Floating point math scores 66824, while integer math scores 107173. The multi-thread score is 31485, and the single-thread score is 4168. Find prime numbers scores 126, and physics scores 1747. These numbers indicate a processor with strong throughput in both integer and floating-point workloads, with particularly high performance in data compression tasks.

The Intel Processor N150's Cinebench results show a much smaller footprint. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 2590.5 and the single-core score is 935. In Cinebench R15, the multi-core score is 422.5 and the single-core score is 153.15. These scores are consistent with a low-power, efficiency-focused processor designed for basic computing tasks rather than heavy workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Gorgon Point codename, belonging to the Ryzen AI PRO 400 generation that combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC. The Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture, belonging to the Intel Processor generation based on Alder Lake-N, and is built on a 10 nm process node at Intel's own foundry.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD processor has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel processor has 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part offers simultaneous multithreading, effectively doubling its thread count, while the Intel part does not. Base clock speeds also differ dramatically: the AMD processor has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The low base clock on the Intel part is characteristic of an ultra-low-power design.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD processor provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The Intel processor provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's per-core L2 and larger L3 pool give it a substantial cache advantage for multi-threaded workloads.

Memory support also differs. The AMD processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel processor supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory over a single-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The AMD part offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the AMD part uses the Radeon 890M, while the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 730. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has an average benchmark score of 62498, compared to 1025 for the Intel Processor N150. The AMD processor also sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel processor sits in the 28th percentile.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD processor supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel processor supports single-channel memory with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Processor N150 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor N150 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD processor has a TDP of 28 watts. The Intel processor has a TDP of 6 watts.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. Core count: the AMD part has 10 cores versus 4 for Intel. Thread count: 20 versus 4. Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 0.10 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. TDP: 28 watts versus 6 watts.

Socket types differ: the AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 1264. Architecture and codename differ: Zen 5 with Gorgon Point for AMD, Twin Lake with Twin Lake for Intel. Process node: 4 nm at TSMC versus 10 nm at Intel. Die size is listed only for the AMD part at 233 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache configuration differs: the AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 16 MB L3. The Intel part has 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support: DDR5 and LPDDR5X for AMD versus DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 for Intel. Memory bus: dual-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s.

PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics: Radeon 890M versus UHD Graphics 730. Release dates differ: the AMD processor was released on 2026-01-04, while the Intel processor was released on 2024-11-19. Part numbers also differ: 100-000001862 for AMD, SRPNR for Intel. Both are mobile processors, both are active in production, both lack ECC support, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 wins in every performance category where data exists. Its 10-core, 20-thread configuration with a 5.00 GHz boost clock, 16 MB of L3 cache, and 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth positions it for demanding multi-threaded workloads. The PassMark results confirm strength in data compression, integer math, floating point math, and encryption. The 93rd percentile ranking places it among the top processors in the database, with nearest rivals being high-end desktop and mobile parts like the Intel Core i9-13900KF and the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX. This is a processor for heavy productivity, content creation, and compute-intensive applications.

The Intel Processor N150 wins in power efficiency. With a TDP of 6 watts, it consumes a fraction of the AMD part's 28-watt TDP. Its single-channel memory, PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and modest cache are consistent with a low-power design for basic tasks. The 28th percentile ranking and nearest rivals such as the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T and Intel Core i3-4340 indicate that its performance level is suited to lightweight workloads: web browsing, document editing, media playback, and other entry-level mobile computing tasks. The N150's 0.10 GHz base clock suggests an aggressive low-power idle state, further emphasizing efficiency over throughput.

The AMD part also wins decisively in memory bandwidth, offering 89.6 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s, and in PCIe connectivity, with Gen 4 and 16 lanes versus Gen 3 and 9 lanes. These differences matter for workloads that move large amounts of data or rely on fast storage and external devices.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two processors with almost no overlap in intended use. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 PRO 465 delivers performance in the 93rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 62498. Its nearest rivals are flagship-class processors, and it comes within 0.4% of the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX and 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185. It even outperforms the Intel Core i9-13900KF by 1.1%. For anyone running multi-threaded applications, the choice is clear from the numbers alone.

The Intel Processor N150 delivers an average benchmark score of 1025, placing it in the 28th percentile. Its nearest rivals are processors from older generations and lower performance tiers. The N150's 6-watt TDP, however, is uniquely low, and its 0.10 GHz base clock indicates a design focused on minimal power draw. This is a processor for efficiency-first systems where raw performance is secondary.

The data shows that the AMD processor is the appropriate choice for users who need computational throughput, fast memory, and modern connectivity. The Intel processor is the appropriate choice for users who prioritize minimal power consumption and basic computing capability. There is no benchmark in the database where the Intel part approaches the AMD part's scores. The distinction is not subtle: these processors serve different markets, and the performance gap reflects that separation.