AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX Comparison

The Verdict

The database paints a clear picture: the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX dominates the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 across the vast majority of recorded benchmarks. Intel wins 12 of the 15 head-to-head tests, with the AMD chip securing only 3 victories. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, with Intel at 48,287 against AMD's 49,796, though the AMD chip holds a 3.1% higher average, driven by its specific strengths in integer math and compression workloads.

For users whose primary focus is raw CPU throughput, particularly in multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 32,358 versus AMD's 18,759 represents a 42% lead, an enormous gap for mobile processors in the same 55 W TDP class. The Intel chip also excels in single-core performance, posting a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4,568 against AMD's 1,960, a 57.1% advantage. This suggests Intel's architecture delivers substantially better per-thread performance, which benefits everything from legacy software to lightly-threaded games.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 does carve out specific niches. It wins in PassMark integer math by 18.9%, scoring 109,588 versus Intel's 92,150. It also leads in extended instructions by 4.8% (32,719 vs 31,212) and data compression by 2% (400,887 vs 393,071). These wins point to workloads that are heavily integer-dependent, such as database operations, scientific computing, and certain types of financial modeling. The AMD chip also shows a higher average benchmark score of 49,796 compared to Intel's 48,287, suggesting that when averaged across a diverse workload suite, the AMD chip holds up well despite losing specific tests by wide margins.

Both processors sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier overall. The choice comes down to workload: Intel for rendering, encryption, physics, and general multitasking; AMD for integer math, compression, and extended instruction sets.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, Intel scores 32,358 against AMD's 18,759, a 42% lead. The R15 multi-core test shows Intel ahead with 3,261 versus 2,872, an 11.9% advantage. PassMark multithread confirms the trend: Intel scores 38,069 versus AMD's 33,486, a 12% lead.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: Intel dominates here as well. Cinebench R23 single-core sees Intel at 4,568 versus AMD's 1,960, a 57.1% gap. Cinebench R15 single-core shows Intel at 460 versus AMD's 298, a 35.2% difference. PassMark single-thread is closer but still favors Intel: 4,481 versus 4,185, a 6.6% edge.

Q: Are there any workloads where the AMD chip wins?

A: Yes, three specific areas. PassMark integer math goes to AMD at 109,588 versus Intel's 92,150, an 18.9% win. Extended instructions favor AMD at 32,719 versus 31,212, a 4.8% lead. Data compression also goes to AMD at 400,887 versus 393,071, a 2% margin.

Q: How do these processors compare in encryption performance?

A: Intel has a substantial advantage. PassMark data encryption shows Intel at 30,022 versus AMD's 20,092, a 33.1% lead. This suggests Intel's architecture handles cryptographic workloads significantly better.

Q: What about memory bandwidth and support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X memory on a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s. AMD's bandwidth is more than double, though this does not translate into benchmark wins for most tested workloads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX does not. This makes AMD the only option for systems requiring error-correcting memory, which is relevant for certain server and workstation applications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. AMD's Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the codename Strix Halo. Intel's Core Ultra 5 245HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture on a 3 nm TSMC process, with the codename Arrow Lake-HX. Both foundries are TSMC, but Intel uses a more advanced node.

The core configurations differ dramatically. AMD packs 8 cores and 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double thread count. Intel offers 14 cores and 14 threads, meaning no hyperthreading on any core. This core count advantage likely explains Intel's multi-core wins despite the thread-count parity in some workloads.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and shares 32 MB of L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and shares 24 MB of L3. Intel's per-core cache is substantially larger, which may contribute to its single-core performance advantage. AMD's larger shared L3 (32 MB vs 24 MB) could benefit multi-threaded workloads that share data.

Memory architecture differs at the system level. AMD supports LPDDR5X across a quad-channel bus, achieving 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s. AMD's memory bandwidth advantage is 150% higher, yet it does not translate into benchmark victories outside of specific integer-heavy tests.

The integrated graphics solutions also differ. AMD pairs with Radeon 8060S, while Intel uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 48 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so no performance comparison is possible from recorded data.

Intel's transistor count is recorded at 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die, while AMD's transistor count is not listed in the database. AMD's die size is documented as two 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 141.2 mm², substantially smaller than Intel's monolithic 243 mm².

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. AMD offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while Intel provides 14 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks differ: AMD runs at 3.60 GHz, Intel at 3.10 GHz. Boost clocks are closer: AMD reaches 5.00 GHz, Intel reaches 5.10 GHz.

Both processors have a 55 W TDP, placing them in the same power envelope. AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2114, making them incompatible with the same motherboards.

Process nodes differ: AMD uses 4 nm, Intel uses 3 nm, both at TSMC. AMD's die size is documented as 2x 70.6 mm², Intel's as 243 mm². Intel's transistor count is 17,800 million; AMD's is not recorded.

Cache configurations differ as noted: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 32 MB shared L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, 24 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: AMD uses LPDDR5X on quad-channel with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. Intel uses DDR5 on dual-channel with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

PCIe capabilities differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). Intel's newer PCIe generation and higher lane count benefit expansion and GPU connectivity.

Intel's multiplier is unlocked, AMD's is not. This means Intel allows overclocking, while AMD does not.

Release dates differ: AMD launched on 2026-01-05, Intel on 2025-01-12, making Intel roughly a year older.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest Intel victory comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where Intel scores 4,568 against AMD's 1,960, a 57.1% lead. This is an enormous single-threaded performance gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows Intel at 32,358 versus AMD's 18,759, a 42% advantage. These two tests alone establish Intel's dominance in both single and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark find prime numbers favors Intel heavily: 359 versus 145, a 59.6% lead. Floating point math also goes to Intel: 120,735 versus 72,722, a 39.8% edge. Data encryption sees Intel at 30,022 versus AMD's 20,092, a 33.1% win. Physics performance favors Intel: 2,526 versus 1,843, a 27% lead.

Cinebench R15 single-core shows Intel at 460 versus AMD's 298, a 35.2% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core is closer: Intel at 3,261 versus AMD's 2,872, an 11.9% lead. PassMark multithread shows Intel at 38,069 versus 33,486, a 12% difference. Random string sorting favors Intel: 47,616 versus 43,196, a 9.3% edge. PassMark single-thread shows Intel at 4,481 versus 4,185, a 6.6% lead.

AMD's wins are concentrated in three areas. PassMark integer math is AMD's largest victory: 109,588 versus Intel's 92,150, an 18.9% lead. Extended instructions favor AMD: 32,719 versus 31,212, a 4.8% margin. Data compression shows AMD at 400,887 versus Intel's 393,071, a 2% difference.

The overall win count stands at 12 for Intel and 3 for AMD. However, AMD's average benchmark score of 49,796 exceeds Intel's 48,287, suggesting that AMD's losses are often narrow while its wins can be substantial, particularly in integer math.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX wins across the broadest range of workloads. Rendering and content creation benefit from its massive Cinebench leads: 42% in R23 multi-core and 57.1% in R23 single-core. Encryption tasks favor Intel by 33.1%, making it suitable for secure communications, VPNs, and data protection. Physics simulations run 27% faster on Intel, beneficial for scientific computing and gaming physics. General floating point math, prime number finding, and multithreaded throughput all favor Intel substantially.

The Intel chip also excels in single-threaded tasks, with a 6.6% lead in PassMark single-thread and 35.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core. This means legacy applications, web browsing, and office productivity will feel snappier on Intel. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking for users seeking additional performance beyond stock settings.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in integer-heavy workloads. Integer math shows an 18.9% advantage, suggesting AMD's Zen 5 architecture handles integer operations more efficiently. Data compression favors AMD by 2%, making it suitable for file archiving, backup software, and database operations. Extended instructions show a 4.8% lead, benefiting workloads like multimedia codecs, cryptography algorithms, and scientific simulations that use SIMD instructions.

AMD also offers unique system-level advantages. ECC memory support is critical for data integrity in financial, scientific, and server applications. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory system provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus Intel's 102.4 GB/s, which could benefit workloads that stream large datasets, even if current benchmarks do not capture this advantage.

For users running a diverse workload mix, the database shows AMD's average benchmark score is 3.1% higher, suggesting that in a blended usage pattern, the AMD chip may hold a slight overall edge despite losing most individual tests. However, for users with specific performance priorities, Intel's dominance in rendering, physics, encryption, and general throughput makes it the safer bet for most applications.