AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with Intel taking 12 of 17 head-to-head wins but AMD securing some decisive victories in specific workloads. The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Intel part scores 3055 against AMD's 1579, a 48.3% deficit for the Ryzen. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (12153 vs 6583, a 45.8% gap) and R20 single-core (1715 vs 929, again 45.8%). These are not marginal differences; the Intel processor roughly doubles AMD's output in the older Cinebench versions.

The Cinebench R23 results tell a different story. Intel still leads in multicore (18395 vs 15674, a 14.8% advantage), but AMD wins single-core with 2212 versus 2040, an 8.4% margin. This suggests the AMD chip's boost clock of 5.00 GHz helps in lightly threaded workloads, while Intel's higher core count (16 versus 8) drives its multicore advantage. The R23 single-core result is AMD's only Cinebench win, but it is a meaningful one.

PassMark tests reveal where each architecture excels. AMD dominates data compression (406505 vs 336177, a 20.9% win), extended instructions (33873 vs 27898, a 21.4% win), and integer math (107046 vs 83111, a 28.8% win). The Ryzen AI Max 385 also edges out Intel in random string sorting (43725 vs 40990, a 6.7% margin). These results point to strong ALU performance and efficient handling of branch-heavy, integer-centric code.

Intel counters with significant wins in floating-point math (103128 vs 71105, a 31.1% advantage), physics (2895 vs 1889, a 34.7% advantage), and prime number finding (327 vs 165, a 49.5% advantage). The encryption test also goes Intel's way (26345 vs 19926, a 24.4% margin). These are compute-heavy, vectorized workloads where Intel's newer Panther Lake architecture with its 3 nm process appears to have an edge. The multithread PassMark score is nearly identical (33978 vs 33705, a 0.8% Intel lead), as is single-thread (4072 vs 4060, a 0.3% Intel lead). The overall average benchmark scores reflect this: AMD sits at 44309 with an 88th percentile, while Intel scores 41215 with an 87th percentile. AMD's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342, a 0.1% difference), while Intel's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, a 0% delta).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher Cinebench R23 multicore score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H scores 18395 versus AMD's 15674, a 14.8% lead for Intel in this heavily threaded rendering benchmark.

Q: Does AMD win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, AMD leads by 28.8% in PassMark integer math (107046 vs 83111) and by 20.9% in data compression (406505 vs 336177). These are the largest AMD wins in the dataset.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD wins with 2212 against Intel's 2040, an 8.4% margin. However, in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core, Intel leads by 26.7% and 45.8% respectively. PassMark single-thread shows Intel ahead by only 0.3% (4072 vs 4060).

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has an average benchmark score of 44309, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215. AMD also holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 88 versus Intel's 87.

Q: What does the nearest rival data indicate?

A: AMD's average score (44309) is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342) and within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44573). Intel's average (41215) is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208) and within 0.6% of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H (40967).

Q: Is the multithread performance significantly different?

A: The PassMark multithread scores are nearly identical: Intel scores 33978 and AMD scores 33705, a 0.8% difference. However, Cinebench multicore results vary widely by version, from a 48.3% Intel lead in R15 to a 14.8% lead in R23.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm². Cache is organized as 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Radeon 8050S. The socket is AMD Socket FP11.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also its codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. It has 16 cores and 16 threads (no hyperthreading), with a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. Cache is configured as 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus providing 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics. The socket is Intel BGA 2540.

Several architectural contrasts stand out. AMD's Zen 5 uses a smaller process node (4 nm) but from TSMC, while Intel's Panther Lake uses 3 nm from Intel's own foundry. AMD has fewer cores but a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 4.70 GHz). Intel has double the cores (16 vs 8) but both chips have 16 threads, meaning Intel relies on physical cores while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading. The memory subsystem differs substantially: AMD's quad-channel LPDDR5X provides 256.0 GB/s, more than double Intel's 115.2 GB/s from dual-channel. AMD's L3 cache is larger at 32 MB versus 18 MB, though Intel's per-core L2 is larger at 2.5 MB versus 1 MB. AMD supports ECC memory, Intel does not. PCIe generations also differ: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 | Intel Core Ultra 7 356H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 12 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 2540 |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001424 | SA4RGQ9EU |

The release dates differ by almost exactly one year, with AMD launching first. Both are mobile market segment parts with active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part carries a higher TDP of 55 W versus Intel's 25 W, which aligns with its higher base and boost clocks. The cache hierarchy is inverted in scale: AMD provides more shared L3, Intel provides more per-core L1 and L2.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins the majority of benchmark comparisons, taking 12 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its strengths are concentrated in multi-threaded compute and vectorized workloads. Cinebench R15 and R20 multicore show Intel leading by roughly 46 to 48 percent, indicating a substantial advantage in legacy rendering workloads that scale with core count. The floating-point math test (31.1% lead), physics simulation (34.7% lead), and prime number finding (49.5% lead) all point to strong FPU and SIMD throughput. Data encryption also favors Intel by 24.4%. These results suggest the Panther Lake architecture, with its 16 physical cores and 3 nm process, excels in scientific computing, physics engines, and encryption tasks. The near-tie in PassMark multithread (0.8% Intel lead) and single-thread (0.3% Intel lead) confirms that Intel's advantage is not universal but is broad across many workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins 5 benchmarks, and its victories are decisive in specific domains. The integer math score of 107046 versus Intel's 83111 (a 28.8% margin) shows AMD's Zen 5 cores handle integer-heavy code with high efficiency. Data compression at 406505 versus 336177 (a 20.9% win) indicates strong memory bandwidth utilization, likely aided by the quad-channel LPDDR5X at 256.0 GB/s. Extended instructions also go AMD's way (33873 vs 27898, a 21.4% margin). The random string sorting test shows a narrower 6.7% AMD advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core win (2212 vs 2040, an 8.4% margin) demonstrates that AMD's 5.00 GHz boost clock provides the highest peak single-thread performance in the newest Cinebench version. The average benchmark score also favors AMD (44309 vs 41215), and AMD holds a slightly higher percentile at 88 versus 87.

For use-case analysis, the data indicates the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H is better suited for multi-threaded rendering, physics simulation, floating-point math, encryption, and prime-number-heavy algorithms. Its lower TDP of 25 W also suggests it can sustain these workloads in thermally constrained mobile chassis. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 is preferable for integer-heavy processing, data compression, extended instruction sets, and string sorting. Its higher memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s) and larger L3 cache (32 MB) likely contribute to these wins. The single-core Cinebench R23 result makes AMD the choice for lightly threaded tasks that rely on maximum clock speed. The overall benchmark scores place AMD slightly ahead in aggregate performance, but Intel wins the majority of individual tests, so the selection depends heavily on the specific application mix.