AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 records an average benchmark score of 44309, while the Intel Core 3 305 scores 18302. The AMD part sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Intel part sits at the 72nd percentile.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor according to the database?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 is nearly tied with the Intel Core i9-13950HX, trailing it by only 0.1%. It also edges out the Intel Core i5-13600 by 0.2%. The Core 3 305 is essentially tied with the Intel Core i3-14100, trailing by 0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen 5 2600E trails it by 0.4%.

Q: Which CPU wins the head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core 3 305. The Intel part records zero wins in the head-to-head set.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gap appears in PassMark integer math, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 107046 versus 32295 for the Intel Core 3 305, a delta of 231.5%. The second-largest gap is in data compression at 176.8%.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 leads in PassMark single-thread with 4060 versus 3977, a modest 2.1% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part scores 2212 versus 1852, a 19.4% lead.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 305 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the positioning clear. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is a high-performance mobile processor aimed at workloads that demand strong multi-threading, heavy compute, and wide memory bandwidth. Its average benchmark score of 44309 places it in the 88th percentile, and its nearest rivals include desktop-class parts like the Intel Core i5-13600 and high-end mobile HX-series silicon. The Intel Core 3 305, by contrast, is a low-power entry-level part with an average score of 18302 and a 72nd percentile placement, sitting alongside the Intel Core i3-14100 and the older AMD Ryzen 5 2600E.

The benchmark sweep is one-sided. The Ryzen AI Max 385 wins every head-to-head test, often by very large margins. In integer math, it delivers 231.5% more throughput. In data compression, it is 176.8% ahead. Even in the closest contest, PassMark single-thread, it still leads by 2.1%. The only area where the Intel part remains competitive is lightly threaded performance, where its 3977 score trails by just 83 points.

For a builder selecting between these two, the choice depends entirely on power and thermal envelope. The Intel Core 3 305 has a 15 W TDP and uses a 3 nm process, making it suitable for thin, fanless or lightly cooled designs where efficiency matters more than absolute throughput. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, with a 55 W TDP, a 4 nm process, 8 cores, and 16 threads, is the pick for workloads that can use the extra cores and the massive memory bandwidth. There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the Intel part wins, so the only argument for it is system power budget, not performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent pattern across both Cinebench and PassMark suites. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 1579 against 1322, a 19.4% lead. The single-core R15 result is identical in percentage terms: 222 versus 186, also 19.4%. Moving to R20, the multicore gap grows slightly to 19.5% with scores of 6583 and 5511, and the single-core gap reaches 19.6% with 929 versus 777. In R23, the multicore scores are 15674 and 13123, a 19.4% delta, while single-core is 2212 versus 1852, another 19.4% gap. These Cinebench results suggest the AMD part holds a nearly uniform per-clock advantage across all render workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals where the architectural differences become dramatic. In integer math, the AMD part scores 107046 versus 32295, a 231.5% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. Data compression shows 406505 versus 146857, a 176.8% lead. Extended instructions deliver 33873 against 13543, a 150.1% gap. Random string sorting is 43725 versus 17623, a 148.1% difference. Multithread performance is 33705 versus 15439, a 118.3% lead. Data encryption is 19926 versus 11019, an 80.8% gap. Floating point math is 71105 versus 42284, a 68.2% advantage. Physics tests show 1889 versus 1233, a 53.2% lead. Prime number finding is 165 versus 115, a 43.5% gap.

The only close contest is PassMark single-thread, where the AMD part scores 4060 and the Intel part scores 3977, a 2.1% delta. That near-tie indicates the Intel Core 3 305 has competitive per-core execution on lightly threaded code, but it loses ground rapidly as soon as more threads or wider data paths come into play. The 17-to-0 win count for the AMD part is not a fluke of one test; it is the result of superior core count, thread count, cache, and memory bandwidth across the entire benchmark battery.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz; the Intel base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz. The AMD TDP is 55 W, the Intel TDP is 15 W. The AMD uses AMD Socket FP11, while Intel uses Intel BGA 1516.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe lanes also differ: the AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Both are mobile parts with active production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 3 305 uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core. The release dates are distinct, with the AMD part dated earlier and the Intel part dated later. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $309.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 305 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on a 3 nm process at Intel. These process differences help explain the Intel part's much lower 15 W TDP despite a lower transistor budget in practical terms.

Cache layouts are structurally different. The AMD part 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 die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel part. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, meaning simultaneous multithreading is enabled. The Intel part has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning no SMT on those cores.

The memory architecture is a major differentiator. The AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X interface provides 256.0 GB/s, more than four times the 59.7 GB/s of the Intel part's single-channel interface. For workloads that stream large data sets, such as compression, encryption, or physics, that bandwidth advantage shows up directly in the benchmark scores. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins every recorded benchmark, so the practical question is which workloads benefit most from its strengths. The largest margins come in integer math, data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting, all of which rely heavily on core count, thread count, and memory bandwidth. For a user running code compilation, data processing, virtualization, or content creation with many parallel threads, the AMD part delivers between 118.3% and 231.5% more throughput than the Intel part in the relevant PassMark tests.

The AMD part also holds a solid lead in all Cinebench render tests, with a consistent 19.4% to 19.6% advantage across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore. That makes it the better choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any heavily threaded creative workload. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 32 MB of shared L3 cache further support these tasks.

The Intel Core 3 305 has no benchmark wins, but its specification profile indicates where it could be used without embarrassment. Its 15 W TDP and 3 nm process allow for very low-power designs. In PassMark single-thread, it trails by only 2.1%, so for basic office tasks, web browsing, or light productivity, the user experience would be similar despite the lower scores. Its single-channel memory and 6 MB of L3 are limiting factors, but they are acceptable for entry-level mobile systems where battery life and thermals take priority over performance.

The data does not support any scenario where the Intel part outperforms the AMD part in raw compute. The only advantage the Intel part holds is efficiency: 15 W versus 55 W TDP. For a thin-and-light laptop with passive cooling, the Intel Core 3 305 is the only viable option between the two. For anything else, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is the clear performer, with its 88th percentile ranking and near-parity with the Intel Core i9-13950HX confirming its high-end placement.