AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded head-to-head data presents an unusually one-sided picture. Across all 15 shared benchmark tests, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 claims victory in every single one, leaving the Intel Core 7 240H without a single win. This is not a close contest where workloads split neatly between two capable processors; it is a systematic performance advantage for the AMD part across rendering, computational math, encryption, and sorting tasks.

The largest gaps appear in data-heavy and encryption workloads. The AMD chip leads by 93.6% in PassMark extended instructions, 49.6% in random string sorting, and 47.5% in data compression. These are workloads that stress instruction-level parallelism and memory throughput, areas where the AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory subsystem and Zen 5 architecture appear to provide substantial headroom. The Intel part, by contrast, uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 without a recorded memory bandwidth figure, which likely explains the sizeable deficit in these memory-sensitive tests.

For single-threaded tasks, the AMD advantage narrows but remains consistent. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD chip scores 1960 versus 1719 for Intel, a 14% lead. PassMark single-thread shows a 10.7% gap (4185 versus 3782). This indicates the Zen 5 core design delivers stronger per-thread performance even though the Intel part has a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 5.00 GHz for AMD. The clock speed advantage does not translate into a performance win for Intel in any measured test.

Multi-threaded rendering also favors AMD. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 18759 versus 15764, a 19% lead, despite having 8 cores and 16 threads compared to Intel's 10 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has more physical cores but cannot overcome the per-core efficiency and memory bandwidth advantages of the AMD design. The PassMark multi-thread test shows an even larger 39.7% gap (33486 versus 23975), suggesting the AMD chip scales better across its available threads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, placing it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 240H averages 31483, which lands in the 82nd percentile. The AMD part's average score is 58.2% higher than the Intel part's, based directly on the recorded values.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 240H win any benchmark against the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388?

A: No. The head-to-head comparison includes 15 tests, and the AMD part wins all 15. The Intel part records zero wins across Cinebench R15 and R23 (single and multi-core) and all PassMark tests (compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime numbers, floating point, integer math, multi-thread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread).

Q: How much faster is AMD in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18759 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 19% higher than the Intel Core 7 240H's 15764. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD advantage is 21.7% (2872 versus 2360).

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The AMD part leads in every single-thread test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1960 versus 1719 (14% higher). In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 298 versus 249 (19.7% higher). PassMark single-thread shows a 10.7% lead (4185 versus 3782). This is notable because the Intel part has a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz).

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores. Both have 16 threads. Despite having two fewer physical cores, the AMD part wins all multi-threaded benchmarks in the comparison.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 7 240H?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has a launch MSRP of $502. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite covers two Cinebench versions and a broad PassMark workload set. In every test, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 finishes ahead, but the margins vary considerably by workload type. The closest contest is PassMark physics, where AMD scores 1843 versus 1723, a 7% lead. This is a relatively modest gap but still a clear win for the AMD part.

At the opposite extreme, PassMark extended instructions shows a 93.6% delta (32719 versus 16897). This nearly doubles the Intel score and indicates a major advantage in workloads that use extended CPU instruction sets, likely including AVX-512 or similar advanced vector operations. The AMD Zen 5 architecture appears to handle these instructions with far greater efficiency than Intel's Raptor Lake design.

Data compression shows a 47.5% lead (400887 versus 271774), while random string sorting shows a 49.6% lead (43196 versus 28866). These are memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, and the AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a substantial throughput advantage. The Intel part's dual-channel memory configuration has no recorded bandwidth figure, but the benchmark results suggest a significant deficit in memory-bound operations.

Encryption workloads show a 32.6% lead for AMD (20092 versus 15155), and integer math shows a 36.3% lead (109588 versus 80396). Floating-point math shows a 23.5% lead (72722 versus 58905). Prime number finding shows a 42.2% lead (145 versus 102). These consistent double-digit margins across computational workloads indicate a broad architectural advantage rather than a single optimized path.

The Cinebench results are closer but still decisive. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 21.7% lead (2872 versus 2360), and R23 multi-core shows a 19% lead (18759 versus 15764). Single-core results are tighter: R15 shows 19.7% (298 versus 249) and R23 shows 14% (1960 versus 1719). The multi-core gaps are notable because they occur despite the Intel part having 10 physical cores versus 8 for AMD. The AMD chip's higher per-core throughput and memory bandwidth compensate for the core count disadvantage.

PassMark multi-thread shows a 39.7% lead (33486 versus 23975), which is larger than the Cinebench multi-core gaps. This suggests the AMD part scales better under sustained multi-threaded load in the PassMark workload mix. The single-thread PassMark result shows a 10.7% lead (4185 versus 3782), consistent with the Cinebench single-core pattern.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core configurations. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 240H uses 10 cores and 16 threads. Both parts thus expose the same thread count to software, but the AMD chip relies on simultaneous multithreading across fewer physical cores, while the Intel chip has two additional physical cores.

Clock speeds differ in both directions. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for Intel. The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for AMD. This creates an interesting dynamic where Intel can reach higher peak frequencies but starts from a much lower base, and the benchmark results show AMD still wins all single-threaded tests despite the lower boost ceiling.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts. The AMD part is rated at 55 W, while the Intel part is rated at 45 W. This higher power envelope likely contributes to the AMD part's performance advantage, though the architecture differences also play a major role.

The memory support differs significantly. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth figure. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. These memory subsystem differences explain the large gaps in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like data compression and random string sorting.

PCIe support also differs. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part has a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes. Both are mobile processors with no unlocked multiplier.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part features a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part uses Iris Xe Graphics 64EU. The database does not include GPU benchmark results, so the relative graphics performance cannot be quantified here.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two parts is substantial. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture, specifically the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-H with the Raptor Lake Refresh generation, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The process node difference (4 nm versus 10 nm) gives AMD a significant density and efficiency advantage that shows up in the benchmark results.

Cache configurations differ in meaningful ways. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: AMD provides 1 MB per core, while Intel provides 2 MB per core. The Intel part has more L2 cache per core, which might help in some workloads. However, the L3 cache favors AMD: 32 MB shared versus 24 MB shared for Intel. The larger shared L3 cache on the AMD part likely contributes to its advantage in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads.

The die size is recorded only for the AMD part: 2x 70.6 mm². No die size is recorded for the Intel part. The AMD part uses a chiplet design with two dies, which is consistent with the Strix Halo approach of integrating CPU and GPU on a multi-die package. The Intel part uses a monolithic design typical of Raptor Lake-H, though the database does not provide a die size figure.

The core count difference (8 versus 10) reflects different design philosophies. Intel's Raptor Lake uses a hybrid architecture with performance and efficiency cores, though the database does not break down the core types. The AMD part uses Zen 5 cores, and the benchmark data indicates these cores deliver higher per-thread performance. The AMD part also has a higher base clock (3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz), which helps with sustained workloads.

The generation gap is notable. The AMD part is from the Ryzen AI Max generation (Zen 5 Strix Halo), while the Intel part is from the Core 7 generation (Raptor Lake Refresh). The AMD part was released on 2026-01-05, while the Intel part was released on 2024-12-17, making the Intel part roughly a year older in release timing. The newer process node and architecture give the AMD part an advantage in efficiency and performance per clock.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves little ambiguity. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins all 15 head-to-head tests against the Intel Core 7 240H, with margins ranging from 7% in PassMark physics to 93.6% in extended instructions. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 49796 versus 31483, placing the AMD part in the 90th percentile of all CPUs versus the 82nd percentile for Intel.

The AMD part's advantages are most pronounced in memory-bandwidth-intensive and instruction-heavy workloads. Data compression shows a 47.5% lead, random string sorting shows 49.6%, and extended instructions show 93.6%. These results point to the quad-channel LPDDR5X memory subsystem and the Zen 5 architecture's instruction handling as decisive factors. The Intel part's dual-channel memory and older Raptor Lake design cannot match this throughput.

The Intel part does have some theoretical advantages. It has 10 cores versus 8, a higher boost clock (5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz), and more L2 cache per core (2 MB versus 1 MB). It also supports PCIe Gen 5 versus Gen 4. None of these advantages translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data. The higher boost clock does not help in single-threaded tests, where AMD wins by 10.7% to 19.7%. The additional cores do not help in multi-threaded tests, where AMD wins by 19% to 39.7%.

For users choosing between these two mobile processors, the data supports the AMD part for virtually any workload measured. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also offers ECC memory support and a recorded 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, features the Intel part lacks. The Intel Core 7 240H does have a lower TDP (45 W versus 55 W), which could matter in power-constrained designs, but the benchmark results show the AMD part delivers higher performance while consuming only 10 W more.

The Intel part's only recorded advantage is its launch MSRP of $502, with no MSRP recorded for the AMD part. However, the database does not provide pricing for the AMD part, so a direct comparison of launch prices is not possible from the available data. The performance differences are so large that the Intel part would need a significant price advantage to be competitive on a performance-per-dollar basis, though such an analysis is outside the scope of this data.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the superior processor across every benchmark in the comparison. The Intel Core 7 240H has no recorded wins and trails by double digits in most tests. The data indicates the AMD part is better suited for multi-threaded rendering, data compression, encryption, and any workload that benefits from high memory bandwidth or extended instruction sets. The Intel part remains a capable processor in its own right, as its 82nd percentile ranking shows, but it is outclassed by the AMD part in this direct comparison.