AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core 9 273PQE Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor delivers the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 9 273PQE records an average benchmark score of 66099, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 records a lower average score of 44309, placing it in the 88th percentile.

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

A: For the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, the closest rival is the Intel Core i9-13950HX, which scores 44342, a difference of only -0.1%. For the Intel Core 9 273PQE, the closest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, which scores 66159, a difference of -0.1%.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a boost clock of 5.90 GHz.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, using quad-channel LPDDR5X memory. The Intel Core 9 273PQE has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, using dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core 9 273PQE is built on a 10 nm process by Intel.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core 9 273PQE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks against the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385. There are zero wins for the AMD part in the database. This is not a close contest.

The Intel Core 9 273PQE should be selected by users whose primary demand is raw compute throughput. Its average benchmark score of 66099 is roughly 49% higher than the AMD's 44309. The Intel part's percentile ranking of 93 versus AMD's 88 confirms a superior overall position in the database.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 should be selected only by users who prioritize the integrated graphics solution, the Radeon 8050S, over CPU performance. The AMD part also delivers a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is more than triple the Intel's 89.6 GB/s. However, for pure processor benchmarks, the Intel part is the clear choice.

The Intel part's higher TDP of 125 watts versus AMD's 55 watts indicates a higher power envelope, but the benchmark results confirm that this power budget translates directly into performance. The AMD part's lower power draw may appeal to those with thermal constraints.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core 9 273PQE dominates every single benchmark in the database. The widest margins appear in the Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel scores 39190 against the AMD's 15674, a delta of -60%. The same -60% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where Intel scores 16459 against AMD's 6583, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where Intel scores 3950 against AMD's 1579.

Single-core Cinebench results show the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 5532 versus AMD's 2212, a -60% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, Intel scores 2323 versus AMD's 929, again a -60% delta. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel scores 557 versus AMD's 222, a -60.1% delta.

PassMark results show smaller but still decisive margins. The Intel part wins floating point math by the largest PassMark margin, scoring 125546 against AMD's 71105, a -43.4% delta. Integer math shows Intel at 164629 against AMD's 107046, a -35% delta. Data encryption sees Intel at 29636 versus AMD's 19926, a -32.8% delta. Physics tests show Intel at 2754 versus AMD's 1889, a -31.4% delta.

The narrowest margin is in PassMark single-thread tests, where Intel scores 4573 against AMD's 4060, a -11.2% delta. Extended instructions also show a relatively close result, with Intel at 38743 versus AMD's 33873, a -12.6% delta. Random string sorting shows Intel at 53167 against AMD's 43725, a -17.8% delta.

The data compression test shows Intel at 585752 against AMD's 406505, a -30.6% delta. Find prime numbers shows Intel at 198 against AMD's 165, a -16.7% delta. Multithread tests show Intel at 46107 against AMD's 33705, a -26.9% delta.

Specification Differences

The Intel Core 9 273PQE has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.90 GHz. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock, but the Intel part has a substantially higher boost clock.

The TDP differs significantly: Intel is rated at 125 watts, AMD at 55 watts. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part has a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel part has a 10 nm process node from Intel.

Cache configurations differ. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD part has 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 2 MB of L2 cache per core and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Memory support differs substantially. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe generations differ. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 8050S, Intel uses UHD Graphics 770.

The market segments differ. The AMD part is listed as Mobile, while the Intel part is listed as Desktop. The AMD part has a release date of 2025-01-05, while the Intel part has a release date of 2026-03-08. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $589. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo. The Intel Core 9 273PQE uses the codename Bartlett Lake, with no specific architecture name listed in the database. The AMD part's generation is listed as Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo)), while the Intel part's generation is listed as Core 9 (Bartlett Lake).

The die size differs: the AMD part has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel part has no die size recorded. The foundry differs: AMD uses TSMC, Intel uses its own foundry.

The core counts drive the fundamental performance difference. The Intel part has 50% more cores and 50% more threads than the AMD part. This core advantage, combined with a higher boost clock of 5.90 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, explains the consistent -60% deltas in Cinebench multi-core tests.

The cache hierarchy differs in L2 and L3. The Intel part has double the L2 cache per core (2 MB versus 1 MB) and a larger shared L3 pool (36 MB versus 32 MB). This larger cache allocation likely contributes to the Intel part's advantage in data compression, integer math, and floating point math tests.

The memory architecture presents a major trade-off. The AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X interface delivers 256.0 GB/s, which is 186% higher than the Intel part's 89.6 GB/s. However, the Intel part's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 support allows for a broader range of memory configurations. The Intel part's PCIe Gen 5 support is one generation ahead of the AMD part's PCIe Gen 4.

The manufacturing processes differ significantly. The AMD part's 4 nm TSMC process is more advanced than the Intel part's 10 nm process. This process advantage allows the AMD part to achieve its 55 watt TDP, which is less than half of the Intel part's 125 watt TDP. Despite the process disadvantage, the Intel part's larger core count and higher boost clock deliver superior benchmark results.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 9 273PQE wins every recorded benchmark. There is no test in the database where the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 comes out ahead. The Intel part's wins span all workload categories: Cinebench multi-core and single-core, PassMark integer math, floating point math, encryption, compression, physics, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, and multithread tests.

The Intel part's largest wins are in Cinebench tests, where it consistently leads by -60%. These tests are heavily threaded and clock-sensitive, and the Intel part's 12 cores, 24 threads, and 5.90 GHz boost clock provide a decisive advantage. The AMD part's 8 cores and 16 threads cannot compensate for the core deficit.

The Intel part also wins decisively in floating point math (-43.4%), integer math (-35%), and data encryption (-32.8%). These results indicate superior ALU and FPU throughput. The Intel part's larger L2 and L3 caches likely support these results.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has no benchmark wins, but the data reveals areas where it is least disadvantaged. The narrowest margin is in PassMark single-thread tests, where Intel leads by only -11.2%. This suggests the AMD part's Zen 5 architecture provides competitive single-core performance per clock. The extended instructions test shows a -12.6% delta, indicating the AMD part's instruction handling is relatively strong.

The AMD part's genuine advantages lie outside the CPU benchmark suite. Its Radeon 8050S integrated graphics is a different class of iGPU compared to Intel's UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is a massive advantage for memory-intensive workloads, even though it does not translate into CPU benchmark wins. The AMD part's 55 watt TDP makes it suitable for systems with strict power budgets.

For users running CPU-heavy workloads, the Intel Core 9 273PQE is the only choice based on the recorded data. For users who need integrated graphics performance or maximum memory bandwidth, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 offers those specific capabilities, but the CPU benchmark data gives no reason to select it for compute performance.