AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core 3 100HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 records an average benchmark score of 49796, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 3 100HL records 23545, placing it in the 76th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 18759 versus 14948 for the Intel Core 3 100HL, a 25.5% advantage. In PassMark multithread, the AMD scores 33486 against 17586, a 90.4% lead.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core 3 100HL wins?

A: Yes, one benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel scores 2110 versus 1960 for the AMD, a 7.1% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test out of 15 where Intel wins.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both have 8 cores. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 16 threads, while the Intel Core 3 100HL has 12 threads.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 100HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus; its bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The closest rival is the Intel Core 9 273PE with an average score of 49845, a 0.1% difference. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also sits 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600KF, 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 100HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. These process differences directly inform the clock behavior and efficiency profile of each chip.

The AMD part runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and boosts to 4.60 GHz. Both chips have 8 physical cores, but the AMD processor supports 16 threads through simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel processor supports 12 threads. This thread disparity explains part of the multi-core gap seen in the benchmark data.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 1 MB of L2 per core and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 3 100HL has 2 MB of L2 per core but only 12 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has nearly three times the shared L3 capacity, which benefits workloads with repeated data access patterns.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD processor uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC support. The Intel processor uses DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no ECC support. The memory bandwidth difference is substantial and affects throughput-heavy tasks.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel Core 3 100HL provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: the AMD uses Radeon 8060S, while the Intel uses Iris Xe Graphics 48EU. The AMD socket is AMD Socket FP11, targeting the mobile segment, while the Intel uses Intel Socket 1700, targeting the desktop segment. The AMD processor has a 55 W TDP, and the Intel processor has a 45 W TDP. The AMD release date is recorded as 2026-01-05, while the Intel release date is 2024-04-07.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in nearly every measured category. The data shows a clean sweep across multi-core workloads, memory-intensive operations, and instruction-heavy tasks. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 2872 versus 1506 for Intel, a 90.7% advantage. This pattern holds across PassMark tests: data compression (400887 versus 202225, up 98.2%), integer math (109588 versus 56308, up 94.6%), floating-point math (72722 versus 42108, up 72.7%), extended instructions (32719 versus 12463, up 162.5%), and prime number finding (145 versus 48, up 202.1%).

The AMD processor also dominates in memory-related throughput. Random string sorting shows 43196 versus 23223, an 86% lead. Data encryption shows 20092 versus 11964, a 67.9% lead. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth supports these results. The Intel part, with dual-channel DDR4/DDR5, cannot match this bandwidth.

The Intel Core 3 100HL has one clear win: Cinebench R23 single-core. A score of 2110 beats the AMD's 1960 by 7.1%. This suggests that in lightly threaded, short-duration bursts, the Intel architecture can edge ahead despite lower base and boost clocks. The Intel chip also has 2 MB of L2 per core versus 1 MB for AMD, which may contribute to this single-core result.

For users running heavily threaded rendering, compilation, or data processing, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the clear choice. For workloads that depend on a single thread and fit within the Intel's 12 MB L3, the Intel Core 3 100HL offers a narrow but real advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | Intel Core 3 100HL |

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

| Cores | 8 | 8 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 32 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8060S | Iris Xe Graphics 48EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Part number | 100-000001980 | Unknown |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 145 versus 48, a 202.1% advantage. This test stresses integer throughput and cache efficiency, and the AMD's 32 MB L3 and 16 threads deliver a result more than three times higher.

PassMark extended instructions shows a 162.5% lead, with 32719 versus 12463. This measures SIMD and specialized instruction performance, an area where the Zen 5 architecture with higher boost clocks and wider execution resources excels.

In PassMark data compression, the AMD scores 400887 versus 202225, up 98.2%. The quad-channel memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s directly feeds compression workloads that move large data blocks. PassMark physics shows a 98.6% lead (1843 versus 928), and PassMark multithread shows 33486 versus 17586, up 90.4%.

Cinebench R15 multi-core delivers a 90.7% lead (2872 versus 1506), while Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a smaller but still substantial 25.5% lead (18759 versus 14948). The R23 test scales differently across thread counts, and the AMD's 16 threads versus 12 threads narrows the gap somewhat.

PassMark integer math shows 109588 versus 56308, up 94.6%. Floating-point math shows 72722 versus 42108, up 72.7%. Data encryption shows 20092 versus 11964, up 67.9%. Random string sorting shows 43196 versus 23223, up 86%. Single-thread PassMark shows 4185 versus 3735, up 12%.

The Intel Core 3 100HL takes Cinebench R23 single-core with 2110 versus 1960, a 7.1% edge. This is the only benchmark where Intel wins. Notably, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the AMD wins with 298 versus 212, a 40.6% lead. The R15 and R23 single-core tests measure different instruction mixes and durations, which explains the divergent results.

The overall win count is 14 for AMD and 1 for Intel. The average benchmark scores reflect this: 49796 for AMD versus 23545 for Intel, making the AMD part more than double the Intel part in aggregate performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 outperforms the Intel Core 3 100HL in 14 of 15 head-to-head tests, often by large margins. The AMD part sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part sits in the 76th percentile. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 49796 versus 23545.

For multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and extended instruction workloads, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the stronger processor. Its 16 threads, 32 MB of shared L3, quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.00 GHz boost clock combine to deliver leads of 25.5% to 202.1% across the recorded tests. The nearest rivals to the AMD part, the Intel Core 9 273PE and Intel Core i5-14600KF, are within 1% of its average score, indicating that the AMD chip competes at a higher tier than the Intel Core 3 100HL.

The Intel Core 3 100HL has a single advantage: Cinebench R23 single-core performance. A 7.1% lead in that test, combined with 2 MB of L2 per core, makes it suitable for lightly threaded tasks that depend on single-core bursts. Its nearest rivals, including the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8540U and Intel Core i5-11500, sit within 1% of its average score, confirming that it belongs to a different performance class.

Users who prioritize single-threaded Cinebench R23 results and desktop socket compatibility (Intel Socket 1700) may consider the Intel part. Users who need multi-core throughput, memory bandwidth, ECC support, or higher aggregate performance should select the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The data does not support any other conclusion.