AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the Intel Core Ultra 7 265. Across all 15 head-to-head comparisons, the Intel part takes the win, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 failing to secure a single benchmark victory. The average benchmark score reflects this gap: the Intel processor records 64640 points against 49796 for the AMD part, placing the Intel chip at the 93rd percentile versus the 90th percentile for its rival.

The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 scores 5960 against the AMD's 1960, a 67.1% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a similar pattern, with Intel leading 600 to 298, a 50.3% margin. These results indicate a substantial architectural lead in lightly threaded workloads, not merely a clock-speed difference.

Multi-core performance follows the same trajectory. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows Intel at 42216 versus AMD's 18759, a 55.6% deficit for the AMD part. Cinebench R15 multi-core records 4255 for Intel against 2872 for AMD, a 32.5% gap. The wider divergence in R23 compared to R15 suggests the Intel processor scales more effectively as thread counts increase, likely due to its larger core count.

Integer and floating-point math workloads reinforce the pattern. PassMark integer math shows Intel at 134773 versus 109588 for AMD, an 18.7% lead. Floating-point math widens the gap considerably: Intel scores 172776, AMD scores 72722, a 57.9% deficit. The AMD part's weaker floating-point showing aligns with its smaller core configuration and lower bandwidth ceiling in these specific tests.

Data-centric workloads follow the same direction. PassMark data compression shows Intel at 522983 against 400887 for AMD, a 23.3% margin. Data encryption shows Intel at 40456 versus 20092, a 50.3% advantage. Extended instructions see Intel at 41478 against 32719, a 21.1% lead. Prime number finding, a workload sensitive to single-thread efficiency, shows Intel at 418 versus 145 for AMD, a 65.3% gap.

Random string sorting and physics simulations complete the picture. PassMark random string sorting records 63833 for Intel versus 43196 for AMD, a 32.3% margin. PassMark physics shows 2923 for Intel against 1843 for AMD, a 36.9% deficit. PassMark multi-thread scores 49682 for Intel versus 33486 for AMD, a 32.6% gap, while single-thread scores 4689 versus 4185, a 10.7% lead.

The smallest margin across all tests is that 10.7% single-thread advantage in PassMark, which indicates that while the Intel part leads everywhere, its closest competition comes in single-thread integer throughput. The largest margins appear in Cinebench R23 single-core and prime number finding, both exceeding 65%, pointing to a fundamental efficiency difference in the core microarchitecture.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses 8 cores and 16 threads, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses 20 cores and 20 threads, based on the Arrow Lake architecture with the Arrow Lake-S codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process, also at TSMC. The Intel part carries 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, while the AMD part uses a dual-die layout with each die measuring 70.6 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The AMD processor provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor offers 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The Intel part's larger per-core caches, particularly the 3 MB L2 allocation, likely contribute to its single-thread advantage in the benchmark data.

Memory subsystems also separate the two. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support enabled. The Intel part supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s, without ECC. The AMD part's doubled memory bandwidth is notable, yet it does not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded tests, which favors compute throughput over memory throughput.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor exposes Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel processor uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The Intel part's newer PCIe generation and higher lane count provide more headroom for expansion, though this does not directly affect the CPU benchmark scores in the database.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. AMD pairs the CPU with Radeon 8060S graphics, while Intel includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 32 execution units. The AMD solution is positioned for mobile use, while the Intel part targets desktops, though the benchmark database does not record GPU-specific scores for either processor.

Socket and platform requirements separate the two entirely. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part targets the mobile market segment, while the Intel part targets the desktop segment. The AMD processor has a 55 TDP, the Intel processor has a 65 TDP. Both have locked multipliers, preventing user overclocking.

Release timing differs by roughly one year. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 carries a release date in early January 2025, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 appears in early January 2026. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $394, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 wins every recorded workload category, but the magnitude of those wins varies by workload type. The largest advantages appear in single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks, particularly Cinebench R23 single-core with a 67.1% margin and prime number finding with a 65.3% margin. These results position the Intel part as the stronger choice for workloads dominated by per-core efficiency, such as legacy applications, scripting, and interactive development tasks.

Multi-threaded rendering tasks also favor Intel decisively, with Cinebench R23 multi-core showing a 55.6% lead. The Intel part's 20 cores versus 8 cores for AMD, combined with its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz against 5.00 GHz, explains the sustained advantage in thread-scaled workloads. For video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation workloads that use many threads, the database shows Intel delivering more than double the Cinebench R23 multi-core score.

Floating-point intensive workloads show a particularly large gap, with PassMark floating-point math at 57.9% in Intel's favor. This suggests the Intel core design handles vector and scientific workloads more efficiently, even though the AMD part offers higher memory bandwidth. The AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration does not overcome the per-core compute deficit in these tests.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has no winning benchmark in the database, but its closest margins reveal where it is least disadvantaged. PassMark single-thread shows a 10.7% gap, and PassMark integer math shows an 18.7% gap. These relatively smaller deficits in integer-heavy, single-thread-limited tasks indicate the AMD Zen 5 core is competitive in basic integer throughput, just not enough to overtake the Intel design.

For workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, such as data streaming or large dataset manipulation, the AMD part's 256.0 GB/s versus Intel's 102.4 GB/s suggests a theoretical advantage. However, the recorded benchmarks do not include a direct memory-bandwidth test, and the data compression test, which often benefits from memory throughput, still shows Intel ahead by 23.3%. The database therefore shows no measured scenario where the AMD part wins.

Thermal and power characteristics may favor the AMD part in constrained environments. The AMD processor has a 55 TDP against Intel's 65 TDP, which could allow thinner cooling solutions in mobile chassis. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Intel part, which may matter for certain data-integrity-focused use cases. These are specification-level differences, not benchmark-derived wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 records an average benchmark score of 64640, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 records 49796, giving Intel a 23.0% higher average.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel part scores 5960 against 1960 for AMD, a 67.1% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the gap narrows to 10.7%, with Intel at 4689 and AMD at 4185.

Q: Does the AMD processor's higher memory bandwidth translate into benchmark wins?

A: No. Despite the AMD part offering 256.0 GB/s over quad-channel LPDDR5X versus Intel's 102.4 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5, the AMD part does not win any recorded benchmark, including memory-sensitive tests like data compression.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 has 20 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265 uses a 3 nm process, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses a 4 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Do both processors support overclocking?

A: No. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports user overclocking.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | Intel Core Ultra 7 265 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 20 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 32EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-01-05 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $394 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001980 | SRQCX |