AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a lopsided contest. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 claims victory in 16 of 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 3 304 manages a single win. The magnitude of the AMD processor's advantage varies dramatically by workload, from a modest single-thread edge to a 334.4% blowout in integer math.

Starting with the multi-core Cinebench results, the Ryzen AI Max 385 demonstrates increasingly dominant performance as the workload scales. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD chip scores 1579 against Intel's 849, a 86% lead. The gap widens to 58.2% in Cinebench R20 multicore, with scores of 6583 and 4160 respectively. By Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD processor reaches 15674 points, which is 197.8% ahead of the Intel part's 5263. This pattern suggests the AMD processor scales more efficiently with additional threads, a conclusion reinforced by the PassMark multithread score of 33705 versus 11625, a 189.9% difference.

Single-core results tell a more nuanced story. The Intel Core 3 304 actually wins Cinebench R15 singlecore, scoring 264 against AMD's 222, a 15.9% advantage for Intel. However, this is the only test the Intel chip wins, and the result does not hold in newer benchmarks. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the AMD processor scores 929 versus 587, a 58.3% lead. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows AMD ahead by 25.3% with scores of 2212 and 1765. The PassMark single-thread test also favors AMD, 4060 to 3614, a 12.3% margin. The R15 result appears to be an outlier, possibly reflecting different instruction scheduling in that older workload.

The PassMark suite reveals where the AMD processor's architecture shines brightest. Data compression shows a 254.2% advantage (406505 versus 114775). Extended instructions deliver a 249.7% lead (33873 versus 9686). Integer math produces the largest delta at 334.4% (107046 versus 24640). Floating point math runs 139.2% ahead (71105 versus 29722). Random string sorting favors AMD by 220.1% (43725 versus 13659). Data encryption shows a 134.4% gap (19926 versus 8501). Even prime number finding, often sensitive to memory latency, puts AMD ahead 142.6% (165 versus 68). The physics test rounds out the sweep with a 117.6% advantage (1889 versus 868).

The average benchmark scores contextualize these results against the broader market. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 carries an average score of 44309, placing it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342, a negligible 0.1% difference, and the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240, just 0.2% behind. The Intel Core 3 304, by contrast, averages 13745 and sits at the 68th percentile. Its nearest competitors are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786, the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868, and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594. The performance gap between the two reviewed processors is roughly equivalent to the distance between a high-end desktop HX chip and a mid-range laptop part from several generations ago.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundries. Despite Intel's smaller process node, the AMD chip achieves far higher performance, indicating architectural efficiency and resource allocation matter more than raw transistor dimensions.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD processor provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part offers 5 cores and 5 threads. The Intel chip has no hyperthreading, which explains its poor multi-core scaling. The AMD processor's simultaneous multithreading effectively doubles its thread count, a feature that contributes heavily to its 189.9% multithread advantage.

Cache hierarchies reflect different priorities. The AMD chip allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor's larger cache allocation per core, combined with the substantial L3 pool, supports its dominance in data compression and random string sorting, both cache-sensitive workloads. The Intel chip's smaller caches likely contribute to its relative weakness in these tests.

Memory subsystems differ in capacity and bandwidth. The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel bus, yielding 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only on a single-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s. This 4.3x bandwidth difference appears in memory-heavy workloads. The AMD processor also supports ECC memory, which the Intel chip does not.

Integrated graphics take different approaches. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 includes a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 3 304 carries Intel Xe3 Graphics with a single Xe core. The AMD solution is positioned for more demanding visual workloads, though the database records no graphics benchmarks.

Clock speeds show an interesting tradeoff. The AMD processor starts at 3.60 GHz base and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel chip starts at 1.50 GHz base and boosts to 4.30 GHz. The Intel part's lower base clock suggests a power-optimized design, while the AMD processor's higher base clock indicates sustained performance headroom. The TDP values confirm this: AMD consumes 55 watts, Intel just 15 watts.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD processor provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part offers Gen 4 with only 6 lanes. This affects expandability for discrete GPUs or high-speed storage.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear separation of use cases. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 delivers substantially higher performance across nearly every measured workload, with the largest advantages in integer math (334.4%), data compression (254.2%), extended instructions (249.7%), and multi-core rendering (197.8% in Cinebench R23). Its 88th percentile ranking places it alongside desktop-class processors like the Intel Core i9-13950HX, within 0.1% of that chip's average score.

The Intel Core 3 304 occupies a different performance tier entirely. Its 68th percentile ranking and average score of 13745 place it near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX and Intel Core i7-8750H, both older designs. The Intel chip's single win in Cinebench R15 singlecore suggests it can hold its own in legacy single-threaded workloads, but that advantage disappears in newer benchmarks.

The power envelope difference deserves attention. The Intel processor draws only 15 watts against AMD's 55 watts. For scenarios where energy consumption is the primary constraint, the Intel part delivers acceptable performance at a fraction of the power draw. The AMD processor's performance comes at a cost in thermal and power requirements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 | Intel Core 3 304 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 8 | 5 |

| Threads | 16 | 5 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 6 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $309 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 dominates multi-core tests. It leads by 86% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 58.2% in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 197.8% in Cinebench R23 multicore. The PassMark multithread score shows a 189.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel chip wins Cinebench R15 singlecore, scoring 264 against AMD's 222, a 15.9% margin. This is its only victory across the 17 recorded head-to-head tests.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD processor supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s. AMD's bandwidth is approximately 4.3 times higher.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD processor has a 3.60 GHz base clock and 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Intel chip has a 1.50 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD processor has a 55 watt TDP, while the Intel processor has a 15 watt TDP. The Intel chip uses significantly less power, which may suit fanless or ultra-portable designs.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins in all compute-intensive scenarios. Integer math performance at 107046 versus 24640 makes it the clear choice for financial modeling, scientific simulation, and any workload relying on arithmetic throughput. Data compression at 406505 versus 114775 suits database workloads, file archiving, and analytics pipelines. Extended instructions at 33873 versus 9686 benefit cryptography, signal processing, and multimedia codecs. The 197.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore positions it for 3D rendering, video encoding, and software compilation.

The AMD processor's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and quad-channel bus support workloads that stream large datasets. The 32 MB L3 cache helps with repeated access patterns in server-style applications. ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running computations where silent data corruption is unacceptable. The 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes allow discrete GPU connectivity for machine learning inference or gaming.

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in power-constrained scenarios. Its 15 watt TDP versus 55 watts enables thinner chassis, longer battery life, and potentially fanless operation. The single-channel memory bus and 6 PCIe lanes suggest a platform designed for basic productivity rather than expansion. The 3 nm process node from Intel contributes to this efficiency, even though it does not translate into raw performance superiority.

The Cinebench R15 singlecore result suggests the Intel chip retains some legacy single-threaded competence, which could matter for older enterprise applications or lightweight scripting workloads. However, the more modern Cinebench R20 and R23 singlecore tests both favor AMD by substantial margins, indicating the Intel advantage is specific to that older benchmark.

Users requiring maximum throughput across all measured dimensions should select the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385. Users prioritizing minimal power draw and accepting a lower performance ceiling should consider the Intel Core 3 304. The release dates also differ, with AMD launching on 2025-01-05 and Intel following on 2026-04-15, which may influence platform availability decisions.