AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX Comparison

Two mobile processors from opposite design philosophies sit at similar power envelopes. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is a 14-core, 14-thread Arrow Lake part built on a 3 nm TSMC process, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is an 8-core, 16-thread Zen 5 Strix Halo chip on 4 nm. Both carry a 55 W TDP and target the same mobile segment, but the recorded benchmark data shows a lopsided contest: the Intel part wins 14 of the 15 head-to-head tests, with the AMD part taking only a single victory in integer math. The Intel chip also posts a higher average benchmark score, 52073 versus 49796, and sits at the 91st percentile of all CPUs compared to the AMD chip's 90th.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel part scores 4903 against the AMD part's 1960, a 150.2% advantage. That is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core: 34731 versus 18759, an 85.1% lead for Intel. Cinebench R15 tells a similar story, with Intel ahead 3500 to 2872 in multi-core (21.9%) and 494 to 298 in single-core (65.8%).

Passmark's prime number test is another blowout: Intel scores 361 versus AMD's 145, a 149% difference. Floating point math also heavily favors Intel, 129819 to 72722, a 78.5% margin. Data encryption shows Intel at 32697 versus 20092, a 62.7% lead. Physics, multithread, and random string sorting all go to Intel with deltas of 38.4%, 22%, and 17.9% respectively. Single-thread Passmark results are closer but still Intel-favored: 4683 versus 4185, an 11.9% edge. Data compression and extended instructions are narrow Intel wins at 6.4% each.

The AMD part's only head-to-head win is Passmark integer math, where it scores 109588 against Intel's 97177, an 11.3% advantage. That is the sole benchmark where the AMD chip comes out ahead, and it is a meaningful one for integer-heavy workloads, but it stands alone in an otherwise Intel-dominated set of results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX. In Cinebench R23 single-core it scores 4903 versus 1960, a 150.2% lead, and in Passmark single-thread it scores 4683 versus 4185, an 11.9% lead.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, one. It wins Passmark integer math with 109588 against Intel's 97177, an 11.3% advantage. No other head-to-head test goes to AMD.

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD part. It supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s, while the Intel part uses DDR5 dual-channel at 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory; the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Intel part has 14 cores and 14 threads, while the AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD chip uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores, while the Intel chip has one thread per core.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel part boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the AMD part boosts to 5.00 GHz. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX wins in every measured category except integer math. That includes Cinebench R15 and R23 in both single and multi-core, Passmark data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread tests. For general productivity, content creation, and any workload that leans on floating point or encryption, the data points squarely at Intel.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 takes integer math, and it also brings structural advantages that do not show up as benchmark wins in this set. Its quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus delivers 256.0 GB/s, more than double the Intel part's 102.4 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. Those features matter for memory-sensitive or error-tolerant workloads, even if the recorded benchmarks do not capture them. The AMD part also has more threads, 16 versus 14, despite fewer physical cores.

For a user who prioritizes raw compute across a broad set of tasks, the Intel part is the clear choice. For a user whose workload is dominated by integer operations, or who needs ECC and very high memory bandwidth, the AMD part has a specific, if narrow, case.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ in nearly every major specification. The Intel part has 14 cores and 14 threads; the AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.90 GHz for Intel and 3.60 GHz for AMD, while boost clocks are 5.10 GHz and 5.00 GHz respectively. The Intel chip uses an Intel BGA 2114 socket, the AMD chip an AMD Socket FP11.

Process technology differs: Intel is on a 3 nm TSMC node, AMD on a 4 nm TSMC node. The Intel die is 243 mm² and the database lists 17,800 million transistors; the AMD die is listed as 2x 70.6 mm² with no transistor count recorded. Cache layouts diverge as well: Intel has 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3; AMD has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of shared L3.

Memory support is a major split. Intel uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. AMD uses LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s and ECC support. PCIe also differs: Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU on the Intel side and the Radeon 8060S on the AMD side. The Intel multiplier is unlocked; the AMD multiplier is locked. Release dates are 2025-01-12 for Intel and 2026-01-05 for AMD. Part numbers are SRVFL for Intel and 100-000001980 for AMD.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX is built on the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically the Arrow Lake-HX codename, and belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2 generation. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, in the Ryzen AI Max generation. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different nodes: Intel at 3 nm, AMD at 4 nm.

The core designs are fundamentally different. Intel's 14 cores each have 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, with a shared 24 MB L3. AMD's 8 cores each have 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, with a larger shared 32 MB L3. The thread counts reflect different approaches: Intel runs one thread per core for 14 threads, while AMD uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 16 threads from 8 cores.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. Intel pairs DDR5 with a dual-channel controller and 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD pairs LPDDR5X with a quad-channel controller and 256.0 GB/s. AMD also enables ECC, which Intel does not. PCIe connectivity favors Intel with Gen 5 and 20 lanes, versus AMD's Gen 4 and 16 lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel ships the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 48EU, AMD ships the Radeon 8060S. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. These architectural choices explain the benchmark results: Intel's higher core count and per-core cache help it dominate multi-threaded and single-threaded tests, while AMD's wider memory bus and ECC support serve different priorities.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX wins 14 of 15 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench result, every Passmark test except integer math, and the overall average benchmark score. Its 52073 average places it just below the AMD EPYC 8124P (52121) and above the Ryzen 9 5950X (51947), while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388's 49796 average sits near the Intel Core 9 273PE (49845) and above the Core i5-14600KF (49394). The Intel part also holds a 91st percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 90th.

For a buyer choosing between these two mobile processors, the Intel part is the default recommendation for almost any workload. It is faster in single-core and multi-core rendering, encryption, floating point math, physics, and general multithreaded performance. The AMD part's single win in integer math, combined with its higher memory bandwidth and ECC support, makes it a niche option for integer-heavy or memory-bandwidth-critical tasks, but the recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX.