AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits these two processors into clearly different roles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins 7 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 7 251TE wins 10. The AMD part dominates in memory-oriented, compression, encryption-adjacent, and single-threaded raw throughput categories. The Intel part sweeps the Cinebench rendering suite and wins in floating-point math, integer math, and physics simulations.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 takes decisive wins in data compression (406505 vs 334399, a 21.6% advantage), extended instructions (33873 vs 16974, a 99.6% advantage), and multithread throughput as measured by PassMark (33705 vs 30022, a 12.3% advantage). It also leads in single-thread PassMark scores (4060 vs 3568, a 13.8% advantage), random string sorting (43725 vs 39643, a 10.3% advantage), and prime number finding (165 vs 140, a 17.9% advantage). These results point to a processor that handles data movement, compression workloads, and scalar instruction streams with unusual efficiency.

The Intel Core 7 251TE, by contrast, wins every Cinebench test by a consistent margin. The multicore scores show 2572 vs 1579 in Cinebench R15, 10717 vs 6583 in R20, and 25518 vs 15674 in R23, each around 38.6% ahead. Single-core Cinebench tests follow the same pattern, with the Intel part leading by 38.6% to 38.7%. The Intel processor also wins in floating-point math (85607 vs 71105, a 16.9% lead), integer math (125739 vs 107046, a 14.9% lead), data encryption (22176 vs 19926, a 10.1% lead), and physics (1938 vs 1889, a 2.5% lead).

This split suggests the AMD chip is better suited for workloads that stress memory bandwidth, instruction-level parallelism, and compression algorithms. The Intel chip is better for rendering, physics simulation, and heavy arithmetic workloads. The Cinebench results in particular indicate that the Intel part scales much better across its core count in sustained multicore rendering tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm TSMC process with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm Intel process with a die size of 215 mm². This process difference likely explains part of the performance-per-watt and frequency behavior observed in the benchmarks.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 24 cores and 32 threads. Despite having three times the core count, the Intel part does not always win, which suggests the AMD cores have significantly higher per-core efficiency. The base clocks tell a similar story: the AMD chip runs at 3.60 GHz base with a 5.00 GHz boost, while the Intel chip runs at 1.40 GHz base with a 5.40 GHz boost. The Intel part relies on a much higher top frequency but a far lower base frequency.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. The AMD chip has 1 MB of L2 per core and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel chip has 1.25 MB of L2 per core and 36 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L2 and shared L3 on the Intel part may help in some workloads, but the AMD part's memory subsystem appears to compensate elsewhere.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 251TE supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 2.86x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which aligns with its wins in compression and random string sorting. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe generations differ as well. The AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part carries the Radeon 8050S, while the Intel part carries UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part targets mobile with a 55 W TDP on Socket FP11, while the Intel part is a desktop chip at 45 W on Socket 1700.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the Intel Core 7 251TE. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 2572 against the AMD's 1579, a 38.6% deficit for AMD. The R15 single-core test shows 362 vs 222, a 38.7% gap. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 10717 vs 6583, again 38.6% behind. R20 single-core shows 1512 vs 929, a 38.6% gap. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 25518 vs 15674, and R23 single-core shows 3602 vs 2212, both at 38.6% behind. The consistency of these deltas across all six Cinebench tests suggests the Intel part has a stable architectural advantage for this rendering workload, likely stemming from its higher core count and higher boost clock.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins data compression with 406505 against 334399, a 21.6% lead. This is the largest non-Cinebench win for AMD. The extended instructions test is even more lopsided: 33873 vs 16974, a 99.6% lead for AMD. This near-doubling suggests the AMD chip has a substantially stronger SIMD or instruction-decoding pipeline for extended instruction sets. Prime number finding also goes to AMD at 165 vs 140, a 17.9% lead, indicating better integer throughput in certain algorithmic patterns.

The Intel Core 7 251TE wins data encryption with 22176 vs 19926, a 10.1% lead. Floating-point math goes to Intel at 85607 vs 71105, a 16.9% lead. Integer math goes to Intel at 125739 vs 107046, a 14.9% lead. Physics goes to Intel narrowly at 1938 vs 1889, a 2.5% lead. These wins align with the Intel part's higher core count and higher boost frequency in arithmetic-heavy workloads.

The PassMark multithread score goes to AMD at 33705 vs 30022, a 12.3% lead, which is notable given the Intel part has 24 cores versus 8. Random string sorting also goes to AMD at 43725 vs 39643, a 10.3% lead. Single-thread PassMark scores go to AMD at 4060 vs 3568, a 13.8% lead. The AMD part wins both single-thread entries in the database, confirming that its per-core performance is significantly higher than the Intel part's per-core performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field recorded in the database. Core count: 8 for AMD, 24 for Intel. Threads: 16 for AMD, 32 for Intel. Base clock: 3.60 GHz for AMD, 1.40 GHz for Intel. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz for AMD, 5.40 GHz for Intel. TDP: 55 W for AMD, 45 W for Intel.

Socket: AMD Socket FP11 for the Ryzen AI Max 385, Intel Socket 1700 for the Core 7 251TE. Process node: 4 nm for AMD, 10 nm for Intel. Foundry: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel. Die size: 2x 70.6 mm² for AMD, 215 mm² for Intel. L2 cache: 1 MB per core for AMD, 1.25 MB per core for Intel. L3 cache: 32 MB shared for AMD, 36 MB shared for Intel.

Memory support: LPDDR5X for AMD, DDR4 and DDR5 for Intel. Memory bus: quad-channel for AMD, dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s for AMD, 89.6 GB/s for Intel. PCIe: Gen 4 for AMD, Gen 5 for Intel, both with 16 CPU-only lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 8050S for AMD, UHD Graphics 770 for Intel. Market segment: mobile for AMD, desktop for Intel.

Release dates differ by one week: the AMD part released on 2025-01-05, the Intel part on 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have locked multipliers. The AMD part number is 100-000001424, and the Intel part number is SRQAXQ5ZG.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s, compared to the Intel Core 7 251TE's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support at 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE scores 25518 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 15674, a 38.6% deficit for AMD.

Q: Which processor wins in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 4060 in PassMark single-thread, while the Intel Core 7 251TE scores 3568, a 13.8% lead for AMD.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Core 7 251TE is built on a 10 nm Intel process.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is the stronger choice for workloads that emphasize memory bandwidth, data compression, extended instruction execution, and single-threaded PassMark performance. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 99.6% lead in extended instructions make it particularly suited for data-intensive and SIMD-heavy tasks. Its 12.3% lead in PassMark multithread despite having only 8 cores versus 24 indicates exceptional per-core efficiency.

The Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger choice for rendering workloads and arithmetic-heavy computations. Its consistent 38.6% lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with wins in floating-point math, integer math, and physics, makes it the better option for CPU rendering, physics simulation, and numerical processing. Its higher core count and 5.40 GHz boost clock drive these results.

The average benchmark scores place the AMD part at 44309 against the Intel part at 41650, a 6.4% advantage for AMD in overall average. Both sit at the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13950HX with a 0.1% lower score and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H with a 0.4% lower score. The Intel part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H with a 0.1% lower score and the Intel Core i7-14650HX with a 0.2% lower score.

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is the better all-rounder for mixed workloads, while the Intel Core 7 251TE is the better specialist for rendering and heavy arithmetic. The choice depends on whether the workload leans toward data movement and compression or toward sustained multicore compute.