AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins all 15 shared benchmark comparisons, with no victories recorded for the Intel Core 5 315. The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the AMD part scores 109,588 against 31,690, a delta of 245.8%. That workload, which stresses raw arithmetic throughput per core and memory pipeline efficiency, is the single biggest functional gap between these two mobile processors.

The Cinebench results confirm the pattern, though with varying intensity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 delivers 2,872 points versus 1,308 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 119.6% advantage. The R23 multi-core test narrows that lead to 44.5%, with scores of 18,759 and 12,981 respectively. Single-core performance is much closer: the AMD chip leads by 7% in R23 single-core (1,960 vs. 1,832) and by 62% in R15 single-core (298 vs. 184). That odd spread suggests the older R15 test favors the AMD architecture more heavily, while the newer R23 test reveals a more modest per-thread gap.

PassMark results amplify the multi-threaded story. The AMD part scores 33,486 in multithread, which is 119.3% ahead of Intel's 15,272. Data compression shows a 174.3% delta (400,887 vs. 146,143), and extended instructions land at 148.9% (32,719 vs. 13,143). Floating-point math favors AMD by 71.3% (72,722 vs. 42,441), while physics simulation shows a 58.5% gap (1,843 vs. 1,163). Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive test, gives AMD a 146.1% edge (43,196 vs. 17,551).

The closest race in the entire dataset is PassMark single-thread: AMD scores 4,185 against Intel's 4,021, a margin of just 4.1%. This is the only benchmark where the two processors behave like comparable modern parts. Data encryption shows an 80.7% gap (20,092 vs. 11,119), and prime number finding, a light integer workload, gives AMD a 29.5% lead (145 vs. 112). The overall average benchmark score reflects this dominance: AMD sits at 49,796, Intel at 18,188, a ratio of roughly 2.7 to 1.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 outperforms the Intel Core 5 315 in every recorded test. The AMD processor occupies the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part sits at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score of 49,796 for AMD places it near the Intel Core 9 273PE (49,845, delta -0.1%) and slightly above the Intel Core i5-14600KF (49,394, delta 0.8%). The Intel Core 5 315, with an average score of 18,188, matches the AMD EPYC 9274F (18,189, delta 0%) and the Intel Core i7-9700 (18,180, delta 0%).

For users prioritizing raw computation, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its closest rivals in the database are desktop-class chips like the Intel Core i5-14600KF and AMD Ryzen 9 7900, indicating that this mobile processor punches well above its segment. The Intel Core 5 315, by contrast, aligns with older desktop parts like the Intel Core i7-9700 and mobile chips like the Intel Core i7-1365U. The data does not support any scenario where the Intel processor wins a benchmark comparison; its only competitive showing is the 4.1% single-thread gap, which is too small to flip any workload.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins everywhere by the numbers, but the margins tell different stories. In single-threaded tasks, the advantage is modest: PassMark single-thread (4.1%), Cinebench R23 single-core (7%). These workloads barely distinguish the two chips, meaning everyday responsiveness, light office work, and single-threaded legacy applications will feel similar. The AMD part still leads, but the user experience difference would be minor.

Multi-threaded rendering and compute favor AMD overwhelmingly. Cinebench R23 multi-core (44.5%) and R15 multi-core (119.6%) show that the AMD chip's 8 cores with 16 threads crush the Intel part's 6 cores with 6 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has no hyper-threading, which explains why its multithread score (15,272) is less than half of AMD's (33,486). Any workload that scales across cores, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or compilation, will see a near-doubling of throughput on the AMD side.

Memory-intensive workloads show the largest deltas. Data compression (174.3%), random string sorting (146.1%), and integer math (245.8%) all point to the AMD platform's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus delivering 256.0 GB/s versus the Intel part's single-channel bus at 59.7 GB/s. The Intel chip also supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only in a single-channel configuration, which severely limits bandwidth for data-heavy tasks. The AMD part's 32 MB of shared L3 cache versus Intel's 6 MB further widens the gap in working-set-heavy applications.

The Intel Core 5 315 does not win any benchmark, so the "where it wins" section is limited to power characteristics. The Intel part has a TDP of 15 watts versus AMD's 55 watts, and a base clock of 1.50 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. The recorded data shows the Intel chip uses significantly less energy, which matters for fanless designs or long battery life, but the benchmark scores do not reflect any performance advantage from this efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads in all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1,960 versus 1,832 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 7% edge. In PassMark single-thread, the margin is 4.1% (4,185 vs. 4,021).

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: The AMD part leads by 44.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (18,759 vs. 12,981) and by 119.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2,872 vs. 1,308). The PassMark multithread score shows a 119.3% advantage (33,486 vs. 15,272).

Q: What explains the huge integer math difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 109,588 in PassMark integer math versus 31,690 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 245.8% delta. This likely stems from the AMD chip's 8 cores with 16 threads, 32 MB shared L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, versus the Intel part's 6 cores with 6 threads, 6 MB L3, and single-channel 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the two chips in the same performance class?

A: No. The AMD part has a 90th percentile rank among all CPUs and an average benchmark score of 49,796. The Intel chip ranks at the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18,188. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE (49,845, delta -0.1%) and Intel Core i5-14600KF (49,394, delta 0.8%), while the Intel chip matches the AMD EPYC 9274F (18,189, delta 0%).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 315 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 was released on 2026-01-05, and the Intel Core 5 315 was released on 2026-04-15. Both are listed as Active in production status.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Strix Halo, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The die is composed of two chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, built on a 3 nm process by Intel, with no die size recorded. The process node difference (4 nm vs. 3 nm) gives Intel a density advantage on paper, but the benchmark data does not translate that into a performance win.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's larger L3 and per-core L2 allow it to keep more working data on-die, which explains its strong showing in compression and sorting benchmarks.

Memory support diverges sharply. AMD uses LPDDR5X exclusively, with a quad-channel bus delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. For data integrity in long-running compute jobs, the ECC support is a meaningful feature difference.

PCIe configurations also differ. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes. This affects how many high-speed peripherals or external GPUs can be attached. The AMD chip's integrated graphics is the Radeon 8060S, while the Intel chip uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The benchmark data does not include graphics scores, so the comparison is limited to CPU workloads.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part's base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part's base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The AMD chip's much higher base clock, combined with its thread advantage, drives its multi-core dominance.

Thermal design power differs by a factor of more than 3.5: the AMD part is rated at 55 W, the Intel part at 15 W. This means the Intel chip can fit in thinner, passively cooled devices, but the performance data shows the trade-off. The AMD part uses the AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. Neither socket is user-upgradeable in a traditional sense.

Memory bandwidth is the most dramatic spec gap: 256.0 GB/s for AMD versus 59.7 GB/s for Intel, a 4.3x difference. The AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X is matched with 32 MB of L3, while the Intel part's single-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X is matched with only 6 MB of L3. The Intel Core 5 315 has a launch MSRP of $340, while the AMD part's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The AMD part's part number is 100-000001980, and the Intel part's is SAEFC. The AMD chip uses a 4 nm TSMC process with a 2x 70.6 mm² die size; the Intel chip uses a 3 nm Intel process with no die size listed. The AMD part's generation is listed as "Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))", and the Intel part's generation is "Core 5 (Wildcat Lake)". Both are mobile market segments with active production status.