AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 338H Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the stronger overall processor in this comparison. Benchmark results show it wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head tests, with particularly dominant victories in integer math, data compression, and extended instruction workloads. Its average benchmark score of 49796 places it at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H scores 33989 on average, sitting at the 84th percentile. The AMD part sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PE in average score, while the Intel part matches the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H almost exactly, with a 0.3% difference.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H is the choice for workloads that emphasize single-core responsiveness and specialized math operations. It wins Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests, plus PassMark floating point math, physics, prime number finding, and data encryption. Its 12 physical cores without hyperthreading still deliver competitive multi-thread results, trailing the AMD part by 14.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core. However, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the pick for content creation, compilation, database work, and any multi-threaded productivity scenario where its 68.8% lead in integer math and 45% lead in data compression translate directly into faster completion times.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, compared to 33989 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H. This places the AMD part at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 84th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18759, which is 14.9% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's 16331. The AMD part also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 2872 versus 2504, a 14.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any multi-threaded tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins PassMark physics with 2697 versus 1843 (a 31.7% lead) and PassMark floating point math with 84067 versus 72722 (a 13.5% lead). It also wins prime number finding with 304 versus 145 (a 52.3% advantage).

Q: Which processor has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth with a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 136.5 GB/s with a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388's closest rival is the Intel Core 9 273PE with an average score of 49845 (0.1% difference). The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H's closest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 165H with an average score of 34083 (0.3% difference).

Q: Which processor wins the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins by a razor-thin margin, scoring 4185 versus 4180 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H, a 0.1% difference. Both parts are effectively tied in single-thread PassMark performance.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with the Strix Halo codename. It integrates the Radeon 8060S graphics solution. The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H uses the Panther Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process node, with the Panther Lake-H generation and Arc B370 integrated graphics. Both processors target the mobile market segment and are currently in active production.

The AMD part features 8 physical cores with simultaneous multithreading, yielding 16 threads. The Intel part has 12 physical cores but no hyperthreading, so it also has 12 threads. The AMD processor's cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core caches but less total L3.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The AMD part uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The Intel part uses a dual-channel LPDDR5X bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only).

The AMD processor has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel processor's die size is not recorded. The AMD part's base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The AMD processor has a TDP of 55, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 25.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded specification fields. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 338H has 12 cores and 12 threads. The AMD base clock is 3.60 GHz versus 1.90 GHz for Intel. The AMD boost clock is 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz for Intel. The AMD TDP is 55 versus 25 for Intel.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 2540. The AMD process node is 4 nm from TSMC, while the Intel process node is 3 nm from Intel. The AMD cache includes 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. The Intel cache includes 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: AMD uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. Intel uses dual-channel LPDDR5X with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe differs: AMD has Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel has Gen 5 with 4 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: AMD has Radeon 8060S, Intel has Arc B370. The AMD part number is 100-000001980; the Intel part number is SA4REQ9EW. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest AMD victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 109588 versus 64934 for the Intel part, a 68.8% advantage. This indicates substantially stronger general-purpose arithmetic throughput, which benefits a wide range of productivity applications. The second-largest AMD win is in PassMark data compression, scoring 400887 versus 276539, a 45% lead. This suggests faster file archiving, database operations, and storage-related workloads.

In PassMark extended instructions, the AMD part scores 32719 versus 23906, a 36.9% lead. This reflects better SIMD and specialized instruction set performance. PassMark random string sorting shows AMD ahead at 43196 versus 34082, a 26.7% advantage, indicating stronger data organization and sorting throughput. The PassMark multithread test confirms the overall multi-core picture: AMD scores 33486 versus 28717, a 16.6% lead.

The Cinebench results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 18759 versus 16331, a 14.9% lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 2872 versus 2504, a 14.7% lead. The PassMark single-thread test is essentially a tie: AMD scores 4185 versus 4180, a 0.1% margin. The same result appears in the PassMark singlethread test.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins the remaining six tests. The largest Intel victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, scoring 304 versus 145, a 52.3% advantage. This suggests much faster prime number generation, a workload that often benefits from specific algorithmic optimizations. The second-largest Intel win is in PassMark physics, scoring 2697 versus 1843, a 31.7% lead. This indicates stronger physics simulation performance.

In PassMark floating point math, Intel scores 84067 versus 72722, a 13.5% lead. This shows better floating-point throughput despite losing the integer math test by a wide margin. In PassMark data encryption, Intel scores 21367 versus 20092, a 6% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 2044 versus 1960, a 4.1% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel scores 305 versus 298, a 2.3% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in scenarios that demand sustained multi-threaded throughput and data manipulation. Its 68.8% lead in integer math makes it suitable for code compilation, spreadsheet calculations, and general office productivity that involves heavy arithmetic. The 45% lead in data compression benefits file archiving, backup software, and database compression routines. The 36.9% lead in extended instructions indicates strong performance for multimedia encoding and scientific computing that leverages SIMD instructions. The 26.7% lead in random string sorting helps with text processing, log analysis, and data wrangling tasks.

The AMD part's 16.6% lead in PassMark multithread and 14.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core confirm that it is the better choice for rendering, video encoding, and parallel compute workloads. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 32 MB L3 cache support these multi-threaded workloads by feeding data to the cores faster. The 90th percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 84th percentile reinforces that the AMD processor is the higher-performing part overall.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 338H wins in scenarios that favor single-core responsiveness and specific math kernels. Its 52.3% lead in prime number finding suggests an advantage in cryptography-related tasks and mathematical research workloads that repeatedly generate primes. The 31.7% lead in physics makes it suitable for game physics simulation and physics-based engineering applications. The 13.5% lead in floating point math benefits scientific simulations, financial modeling, and any workload dominated by floating-point operations rather than integers.

The Intel part's wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, by 2.3% and 4.1% respectively, indicate faster single-threaded application performance. This helps with legacy software, lightly threaded applications, and interactive workloads where a single core handles most of the work. The 6% lead in data encryption makes it a reasonable choice for encrypted file systems and VPN throughput. The 12-core count without hyperthreading provides broad parallelism for workloads that scale across many physical cores, even though the AMD part's 8 cores with hyperthreading ultimately deliver higher multi-core scores in most tests.

The Intel processor's lower TDP of 25 versus 55 suggests it fits in thinner, more power-constrained designs where sustained multi-core performance is less critical. Its dual-channel memory bus with 136.5 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient for its core count, while the AMD part's quad-channel memory configuration aligns with its higher-bandwidth needs. The Intel part's Gen 5 PCIe with 4 lanes offers newer connectivity for peripheral devices, though the AMD part's Gen 4 with 16 lanes provides more total lanes for expansion.