AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into clearly distinct roles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H wins 6. The AMD part dominates heavily in multi-threaded rendering and integer-heavy workloads, while the Intel part counters in floating-point math, prime number finding, encryption, physics simulation, and single-threaded PassMark tests.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the clear choice for CPU-bound creative and productivity tasks that scale across cores. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18,759 is more than double the Intel's 9,240, a 103% advantage. Data compression also favors AMD decisively, with a score of 400,887 versus 298,850, a 34.1% lead. Integer math shows a 40.5% gap in AMD's favor (109,588 vs 77,975). These results point to a processor built for sustained, heavy workloads such as video encoding, 3D rendering, database operations, and code compilation.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, despite its lower core count in terms of performance-class cores, wins specific niche workloads. Its floating-point math score of 98,796 beats AMD's 72,722 by 26.4%. The find prime numbers test shows Intel at 303 versus AMD's 145, a 52.1% advantage. Data encryption also goes Intel's way (23,395 vs 20,092, a 14.1% lead), as does the physics simulation test (2,254 vs 1,843, an 18.2% gap). The PassMark single-thread score marginally favors Intel (4,317 vs 4,185, a 3.1% difference). These wins suggest Intel's architecture handles specific math functions and single-threaded responsiveness better, which can matter for legacy applications, certain scientific workloads, and everyday UI responsiveness.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49,796, which places it in the 90th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H records an average score of 33,537, placing it in the 83rd percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18,759 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 103% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's score of 9,240. This is the largest performance gap recorded between the two processors.

Q: Where does the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H outperform the AMD chip?

A: The Intel part wins in six tests: data encryption (23,395 vs 20,092), find prime numbers (303 vs 145), floating-point math (98,796 vs 72,722), physics (2,254 vs 1,843), and the PassMark single-thread tests (4,317 vs 4,185, recorded twice).

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor according to the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388's closest rival is the Intel Core 9 273PE, with an average score of 49,845, which is 0.1% different. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 240, with an average score of 33,542, showing a 0% delta.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H supports dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X memory with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, slightly higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388's boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite reveals the starkest divide. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18,759 against Intel's 9,240, a 103% advantage. The older Cinebench R15 multicore test shows a similar pattern: AMD at 2,872 versus Intel at 1,515, an 89.6% lead. Single-core Cinebench results also favor AMD, though by smaller margins: R23 single-core shows 1,960 vs 1,843 (a 6.3% lead), and R15 single-core shows 298 vs 251 (an 18.7% lead).

The PassMark suite splits the results across different workload types. AMD wins data compression (400,887 vs 298,850, a 34.1% lead), extended instructions (32,719 vs 23,755, a 37.7% lead), integer math (109,588 vs 77,975, a 40.5% lead), multithread (33,486 vs 30,703, a 9.1% lead), and random string sorting (43,196 vs 36,058, a 19.8% lead). Intel wins data encryption (23,395 vs 20,092, a 14.1% lead), find prime numbers (303 vs 145, a 52.1% lead), floating-point math (98,796 vs 72,722, a 26.4% lead), physics (2,254 vs 1,843, an 18.2% lead), and the PassMark single-thread test (4,317 vs 4,185, a 3.1% lead).

The largest single margin is the Cinebench R23 multicore result at 103% in AMD's favor. The second largest is the Cinebench R15 multicore result at 89.6%. On the Intel side, the largest margin is the find prime numbers test at 52.1%. The average benchmark score difference is substantial: 49,796 for AMD versus 33,537 for Intel, a difference of 16,259 points.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means Intel offers the same thread count with twice as many physical cores, a design choice that affects how the workload is distributed.

Clock speeds differ as well. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Intel's higher boost clock does not translate into overall performance superiority, as the benchmark data shows.

The thermal design power (TDP) differs by a wide margin. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 255H has a TDP of 28 watts. This indicates AMD's design targets higher sustained performance at the cost of power draw, while Intel aims for efficiency.

Memory support differs in bus width and bandwidth. AMD supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports dual-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. AMD's memory bandwidth is exactly two and a half times higher, which explains its strong showing in memory-intensive tasks like data compression.

The platform interfaces also differ. AMD uses Socket FP11 with PCIe Gen 4 (16 lanes), while Intel uses BGA 2049 with PCIe Gen 5 (20 lanes). The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD pairs with the Radeon 8060S, while Intel uses Arc Graphics 140T. Both support ECC memory. The release dates differ by roughly one year: AMD's release date is 2026-01-05, while Intel's is 2025-01-12.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm². Its cache structure includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H uses the Arrow Lake architecture with the codename Arrow Lake-H, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Its cache structure includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's L1 cache is 2.4 times larger per core, and its L2 cache is three times larger per core. AMD compensates with a larger shared L3 pool: 32 MB versus 24 MB.

The process node difference matters for power efficiency. Intel's 3 nm process is technically more advanced than AMD's 4 nm, and the TDP figures reflect this: Intel operates at 28 watts versus AMD's 55 watts. The core count difference is also architectural: Intel uses 16 smaller cores to achieve the same 16 threads as AMD's 8 larger cores. This explains why Intel wins in certain math-heavy tests despite losing the multi-threaded rendering benchmarks.

The memory architecture is a key differentiator. AMD's quad-channel design with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is built to feed its high-performance cores and integrated graphics. Intel's dual-channel design with 102.4 GB/s is more conservative and aligns with its lower TDP target.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear split based on workload requirements. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 should be selected for applications that demand maximum multi-threaded compute: 3D rendering, video processing, data compression, and integer-heavy development workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 18,759 is more than double the Intel's 9,240, and its data compression score of 400,887 leads by 34.1%. The 90th percentile ranking against all CPUs confirms its position as a high-end performer.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H should be selected for scenarios where floating-point math, encryption, physics simulation, and single-threaded responsiveness take priority over raw multi-core throughput. Its floating-point math score of 98,796 beats AMD by 26.4%, and its find prime numbers score of 303 is more than double AMD's 145. The 83rd percentile ranking still places it above most CPUs, and its 28-watt TDP suggests it fits into thinner, more power-conscious designs.

For users who need a balanced mobile processor with strong multi-threading, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 delivers 9 wins out of 15 head-to-head tests and a 48.5% higher average benchmark score. The database places its nearest rivals at the Intel Core 9 273PE and Intel Core i5-14600KF, both desktop-class or higher-tier mobile parts, indicating it competes above its segment. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255H, with nearest rivals including the AMD Ryzen 7 8840HS and AMD Ryzen 5 7645HX, sits in a more mainstream performance tier. The choice reduces to whether the workload favors AMD's massive multi-threaded and memory bandwidth advantages or Intel's targeted math and efficiency strengths.