AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split between the two processors, with the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H dominating multi-core rendering workloads while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 takes the lead in several PassMark compute tasks. Out of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part wins 12, while the AMD part wins 5.

The largest margins belong to Intel in Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core Ultra X7 358H scores 3027 against 1579 for the Ryzen AI Max 385, a 47.8% advantage. The R20 multi-core result shows a similar gap, with Intel at 12011 versus 6583, a 45.2% lead. The R23 multi-core gap narrows considerably, but Intel still wins with 18747 against 15674, a 16.4% margin.

Single-core Cinebench results are more nuanced. Intel wins R15 single-core with 301.5 versus 222, a 26.4% lead, and R20 single-core with 1695 versus 929, a 45.2% lead. However, AMD takes R23 single-core with 2212 against 2080, a 6.3% margin. This reversal suggests the Ryzen part scales better in the newer rendering workload.

PassMark results show a mixed bag. Intel wins floating point math by a wide margin, scoring 103842 against 71105, a 31.5% advantage. Intel also leads in find prime numbers, 337 versus 165, a 51% gap, and in physics, 3021 versus 1889, a 37.5% margin. Data encryption goes to Intel with 26046 versus 19926, a 23.5% lead.

AMD counters with strong results in integer math, scoring 107046 against 83147, a 28.7% advantage. Data compression also favors AMD, 406505 versus 332508, a 22.3% margin. Extended instructions go to AMD with 33873 against 27274, a 24.2% lead. Random string sorting is an AMD win at 43725 versus 40357, an 8.3% margin.

The multithread PassMark test is nearly tied, with Intel edging out AMD 33802 to 33705, a 0.3% difference. Single-thread PassMark is also close, Intel at 4124 versus 4060, a 1.6% margin. These near-ties indicate that overall throughput is comparable despite the divergent workload-specific results.

Average benchmark scores place the AMD part at 44309 with an 88th percentile ranking, while the Intel part averages 40967 at the 87th percentile. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13950HX at 44342 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i5-13600 at 44240 (0.2% lower), the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H at 44466 (0.4% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D at 44573 (0.6% higher). The Intel chip sits near the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 at 41208 (0.6% higher), the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H at 41215 (0.6% higher), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G at 40718 (0.6% lower), and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H at 41263 (0.7% higher).

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a TSMC 4 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses the Panther Lake codename from the Ultra X7 generation, built on an Intel 3 nm process. Both are mobile parts, but the AMD chip comes from the Ryzen AI Max family while the Intel chip belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3.

Core counts differ substantially. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means the Intel chip has twice the physical cores but the same thread count, indicating no hyperthreading on the Intel side. The AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores.

Clock speeds favor AMD in base frequency, with the Ryzen part running at 3.60 GHz versus 1.90 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.80 GHz. The Intel chip compensates for its lower base clock with a much higher core count.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. 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 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core caches, while AMD has a larger shared L3 pool.

Memory configuration also differs. Both support LPDDR5X, but AMD uses a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. AMD also supports ECC memory, while Intel does not. PCIe connectivity favors Intel on generation, with Gen 5 and 4 lanes versus AMD's Gen 4 and 16 lanes, though AMD offers more total lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. AMD pairs the processor with a Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses an Arc B390. The die size for AMD is listed as 2x 70.6 mm², while Intel does not have a recorded die size. AMD's socket is AMD Socket FP11, and Intel uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD part number is 100-000001424, and the Intel part number is SA4RAQ9ET. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has an average benchmark score of 44309, compared to 40967 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The AMD chip sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip is at the 87th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 18747 against 15674 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, a 16.4% advantage.

Q: Which part is faster in single-threaded PassMark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 4124 in PassMark single-thread, marginally ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 at 4060, a 1.6% difference.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H uses a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to match the thread count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core count is 8 for AMD and 16 for Intel. Thread count is identical at 16. Base clock is 3.60 GHz for AMD and 1.90 GHz for Intel. Boost clock is 5.00 GHz for AMD and 4.80 GHz for Intel. TDP is 55 watts for AMD and 25 watts for Intel. Socket is AMD Socket FP11 for the Ryzen part and Intel BGA 2540 for the Core Ultra part.

The process node is 4 nm for AMD (TSMC foundry) and 3 nm for Intel (Intel foundry). Cache sizes differ at every level: L1 is 80 KB per core for AMD versus 192 KB per core for Intel, L2 is 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core, and L3 is 32 MB shared versus 18 MB shared. Memory bus is quad-channel for AMD and dual-channel for Intel. Memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. ECC support is present on AMD and absent on Intel.

PCIe configuration is Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics are Radeon 8050S on the AMD side and Arc B390 on the Intel side. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm² for AMD, with no figure for Intel. Release dates are 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2026-01-04 for Intel. Part numbers are 100-000001424 for AMD and SA4RAQ9ET for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the clear winner in Cinebench rendering workloads, taking all three multi-core tests and two of the three single-core tests. Its floating point math advantage of 31.5% suggests strong FPU throughput, and the physics test result, 3021 versus 1889, reinforces that pattern. Data encryption also favors Intel by 23.5%, and the find prime numbers test shows a 51% lead, indicating strong integer sequential processing in certain workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins the workloads where its memory bandwidth and cache configuration pay off. Data compression shows a 22.3% lead, extended instructions a 24.2% lead, and integer math a 28.7% lead. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 8.3%. The Cinebench R23 single-core win, 2212 versus 2080, indicates the Zen 5 core can outrun the Intel core in that specific rendering test.

Workload selection drives the outcome. Rendering and floating point heavy tasks favor Intel, while data compression, integer math, and extended instruction workloads favor AMD. The multithread PassMark result, a 0.3% gap in favor of Intel, and the single-thread PassMark result, a 1.6% gap in favor of Intel, show that general-purpose throughput is nearly balanced. The AMD chip's higher average benchmark score, 44309 versus 40967, comes from its stronger performance in the specific PassMark tests that contribute to that average, despite losing the majority of head-to-head comparisons.

The TDP difference, 55 watts for AMD versus 25 watts for Intel, is notable in the context of mobile platforms. The Intel chip achieves its multi-core wins at a substantially lower power envelope, while the AMD chip uses more power to deliver its compression and integer advantages. The higher core count on Intel, 16 versus 8, likely drives the multi-core Cinebench results, while AMD's larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth support its PassMark wins.