AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core i5-14400T Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a dominant performance profile for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, which wins 14 of the 15 compared benchmark tests. The most decisive margin appears in PassMark extended instructions, where the AMD part scores 32,719 against 14,562 for the Intel Core i5-14400T, a 124.7% advantage. This test exercises advanced CPU instruction sets, and the gap indicates substantial architectural efficiency in compute-heavy workloads.

Across integer math, the AMD processor records 109,588 versus 65,667 for the Intel part, a 66.9% lead. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 72,722 against 49,139, a 48% difference. These two tests together suggest that the AMD Zen 5 core design delivers significantly higher per-thread throughput in raw arithmetic operations.

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the largest Cinebench disparity, with AMD scoring 2,872 against Intel's 1,732, a 65.8% advantage. However, the newer Cinebench R23 multi-core test narrows that gap considerably: AMD scores 18,759 versus 17,189, only 9.1% ahead. This discrepancy between R15 and R23 indicates that the Intel part scales better under the longer, more sustained workload of R23, while the AMD part excels in the shorter R15 burst.

In single-threaded tests, the results split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 298 versus 244, a 22.1% margin. It also wins PassMark single-thread with 4,185 against 3,512, a 19.2% lead. However, the Intel Core i5-14400T takes Cinebench R23 single-core decisively, scoring 2,426 versus 1,960, which is a 19.2% advantage for Intel. This is the only benchmark win for the Intel processor in the entire comparison.

Memory-related and data-heavy tests further reinforce the AMD advantage. Data compression shows 400,887 versus 235,636, a 70.1% lead. Random string sorting follows at 43,196 versus 25,181, a 71.5% margin. Data encryption shows 20,092 against 13,244, a 51.7% difference. Prime number finding, a test sensitive to integer throughput, shows 145 versus 73, a 98.6% lead for AMD.

The PassMark multi-thread score, which aggregates overall parallel performance, shows 33,486 against 20,223, a 65.6% advantage. Physics simulation, another multi-threaded workload, shows 1,843 versus 1,244, a 48.2% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins across nearly every workload category in the database. Its strengths are most pronounced in extended instruction workloads, data compression, random string sorting, and integer math, all showing margins above 65%. These results point to a processor that excels in scientific computing, data processing, encryption, and any workload that benefits from high memory bandwidth and efficient SIMD execution.

The AMD part also leads in multi-threaded applications like video rendering and physics simulation, though the Cinebench R23 margin of 9.1% is modest compared to other tests. This suggests that while the AMD processor has superior raw compute throughput, the Intel part's hybrid core arrangement remains competitive in sustained rendering workloads.

The Intel Core i5-14400T wins only Cinebench R23 single-core, where it leads by 19.2%. This single victory is notable because R23 single-core is a widely referenced metric for general application responsiveness. The Intel part achieves this with a lower boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for AMD, indicating that the Raptor Lake architecture's single-core efficiency, particularly its high-frequency P-cores, delivers strong performance in lightly threaded tasks.

For workloads that are bursty and short-lived, such as Cinebench R15, the AMD processor shows a massive lead. For sustained single-threaded tasks, the Intel processor demonstrates a clear edge. The database also shows the AMD processor holds a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 79th percentile, placing them roughly 11 percentile points apart in overall standing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a Strix Halo codename and a mobile market segment. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core i5-14400T uses Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm Intel process, with a Raptor Lake-R codename and a desktop market segment. It has 10 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

The core count difference is notable: Intel has two more physical cores, but both parts present 16 threads to the operating system. The Intel part achieves this through a hybrid design with performance and efficiency cores, while the AMD part uses eight full Zen 5 cores with simultaneous multithreading.

Cache configurations differ. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 per core. The AMD part has 1 MB of L2 per core, while the Intel part has 1.25 MB of L2 per core. Shared L3 cache favors AMD: 32 MB shared versus 20 MB shared for Intel. This additional L3 capacity likely contributes to the AMD part's strong showing in data compression and random string sorting, workloads that benefit from larger working sets in cache.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD processor uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. Both support ECC memory. The memory bandwidth difference is substantial and explains why the AMD part dominates in memory-intensive tests like data encryption and random string sorting.

PCIe generations differ: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part's newer PCIe generation offers higher interconnect bandwidth to discrete devices, though neither part has an unlocked multiplier.

The process node difference is significant: 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The die size also varies, with AMD using two chiplets at 2x 70.6 mm² compared to a single 215 mm² die for Intel. This reflects AMD's chiplet design approach versus Intel's monolithic die.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD part includes a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part has UHD Graphics 730. The AMD part's TDP is 55 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 35 watts, indicating the AMD processor consumes more power but delivers higher performance across most metrics.

The release dates place the AMD part at 2026-01-05 and the Intel part at 2024-01-07, roughly two years apart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 14 of 15 head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i5-14400T wins only one test, Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How large is the AMD processor's lead in multi-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part leads by 65.8% (2,872 versus 1,732). In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the lead narrows to 9.1% (18,759 versus 17,189). PassMark multi-thread shows a 65.6% advantage (33,486 versus 20,223).

Q: Where does the Intel processor outperform the AMD processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-14400T wins only Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2,426 against 1,960 for the AMD part, a 19.2% margin.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-14400T supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel part has 10 cores and 16 threads. Both present 16 threads to software.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel Core i5-14400T has a TDP of 35 watts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | Intel Core i5-14400T |

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

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-R |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

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

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| TDP | 55 W | 35 W |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 215 mm² |

| Release Date | 2026-01-05 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $221 |

| Part Number | 100-000001980 | SRN3N |