AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly tight contest between the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, with the AMD part taking 9 wins and the Intel part taking 8 wins across the 17 recorded tests. The overall average benchmark score favors Intel, with the Core Ultra 5 235 scoring 46,062 against the Ryzen AI Max 385's 44,309, a difference of roughly 3.8 percent. However, the per-test deltas reveal a clear thematic split: AMD dominates the Cinebench render workloads, while Intel sweeps the Passmark math and physics tests.

In Cinebench, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is consistently ahead by a narrow margin of about 6 percent. The multicore scores show 1,579 versus 1,488 in R15, 6,583 versus 6,202 in R20, and 15,674 versus 14,769 in R23. The single-core results follow the same pattern, with AMD leading 222 to 210 in R15, 929 to 875 in R20, and 2,212 to 2,085 in R23. Every Cinebench delta is between 5.7 and 6.2 percent, which indicates a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The Passmark suite tells a different story. Intel wins the encryption test by a substantial 32 percent margin, scoring 29,293 against AMD's 19,926. The prime number search is an even larger gap, with Intel at 371 versus AMD's 165, a 55.5 percent advantage. Intel also leads in floating point math by 39.7 percent (117,951 versus 71,105), in physics by 26.5 percent (2,570 versus 1,889), and in multithread by 10.9 percent (37,816 versus 33,705). Random string sorting goes to Intel by 10.7 percent (48,980 versus 43,725), and single-thread performance favors Intel by 10.1 percent (4,516 versus 4,060).

AMD's Passmark wins are concentrated in integer math, where it leads by 21.7 percent (107,046 versus 87,948), data compression by 4 percent (406,505 versus 390,711), and extended instructions by 3.4 percent (33,873 versus 32,752). These are meaningful but smaller margins compared to Intel's dominant victories in the math-oriented tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is the clear choice for rendering and content-creation workloads that rely on Cinebench-style multi-threaded execution. Its consistent 6 percent lead across all three Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core, suggests that its 8-core, 16-thread Zen 5 configuration delivers better sustained performance per thread in ray-tracing and 3D scene generation tasks. The integer math advantage of 21.7 percent also points to strength in general-purpose computing, database operations, and any integer-heavy algorithm. Data compression and extended instruction workloads also favor AMD, making it suitable for archiving, compression tools, and SIMD-heavy applications.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 excels in floating-point-heavy and cryptographic workloads. The 39.7 percent lead in floating point math is substantial, and the 32 percent advantage in data encryption indicates strong AES and crypto instruction throughput. The 55.5 percent margin in prime number finding is characteristic of a processor with strong branch prediction and division efficiency. The physics test, where Intel leads by 26.5 percent, often correlates with gaming physics simulations and scientific computing. The 10.1 percent single-thread advantage in Passmark suggests that Intel has the edge in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive applications, even though AMD wins the Cinebench single-core tests.

For users prioritizing render farms, 3D modeling, or video encoding that scales with Cinebench scores, the AMD part should be favored. For users running scientific simulations, cryptography, or physics engines, the Intel part delivers higher raw throughput in those specific domains. The multithread Passmark score, which favors Intel by 10.9 percent, indicates that Intel's 14-core, 14-thread configuration scales better in certain parallel workloads, despite having no hyper-threading.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has a higher average benchmark score of 46,062, compared to the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385's 44,309. This places Intel in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while AMD sits in the 88th percentile.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 win any multi-core tests?

A: Yes, the AMD part wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests: R15 with 1,579 versus 1,488, R20 with 6,583 versus 6,202, and R23 with 15,674 versus 14,769. Each win is by a delta of approximately 6.1 percent.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in either direction?

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 scores 371 against AMD's 165, a 55.5 percent advantage for Intel.

Q: How does the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 perform in encryption compared to AMD?

A: Intel leads the data encryption test by 32 percent, scoring 29,293 versus AMD's 19,926. This is one of Intel's most significant wins.

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance in Passmark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 has a 10.1 percent lead in Passmark single-thread, scoring 4,516 versus AMD's 4,060. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD part leads by 6.1 percent with 2,212 versus 2,085.

Q: Are the two processors from the same market segment?

A: No, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is a mobile processor, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 235 is a desktop processor. This is reflected in their sockets, memory support, and TDP ratings.

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 Ultra 5 235 has 14 cores and 14 threads. The base clock is 3.60 GHz for AMD and 3.40 GHz for Intel, while both boost to 5.00 GHz. The TDP is 55 watts for AMD and 65 watts for Intel.

The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while Intel uses Socket 1851. The memory support differs: AMD uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports ECC memory, Intel does not. PCIe connectivity differs, with AMD providing Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and Intel providing Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics are Radeon 8050S for AMD and Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 24EU for Intel. The market segments are Mobile for AMD and Desktop for Intel. The release dates are one day apart: January 5, 2025 for AMD and January 6, 2025 for Intel. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $257; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235 uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, manufactured on a 3 nm process, also by TSMC. Intel's transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million, with a die size of 243 mm², while AMD's die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Cache layouts differ significantly. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. This means Intel has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, while AMD has a larger shared L3 pool.

The generation labels differ, with AMD listed as "Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))" and Intel as "Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake)". The memory bandwidth difference is notable: AMD's quad-channel LPDDR5X delivers 256.0 GB/s, exactly 2.5 times Intel's dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to AMD's strong Cinebench performance, particularly in multi-core rendering where memory access patterns are intensive.

The process node difference, 4 nm versus 3 nm, does not translate into a clear performance advantage for Intel in the recorded benchmarks. Despite having more cores (14 versus 8) and a smaller process node, Intel only leads in the average benchmark score by a small margin. The architectural trade-offs are evident: AMD's larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth support its rendering wins, while Intel's larger L1 and L2 caches and higher boost efficiency support its math and encryption wins. The Intel part also has a higher TDP, allowing it to sustain higher power draw, which may explain its leads in the floating-point and physics tests.