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

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 16 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores. Both processors have 16 threads.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has an average benchmark score of 41621.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H leads in both Cinebench R23 single-core (2080 vs 1960) and PassMark single-thread (4334 vs 4185). The deltas are 5.8% and 3.4% respectively.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H boosts to 5.30 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388's 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 4.

The Verdict

The recorded data splits these two mobile processors into distinct usage profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H takes the majority of benchmark wins, including all Cinebench tests and several PassMark workloads. Its advantage in floating-point math, prime number finding, encryption, and physics workloads is substantial. For users prioritizing raw computational breadth in everyday tasks, the Intel part demonstrates consistent superiority.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, despite fewer wins, shows decisive strengths in integer math, data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting. Its 19.8% lead in data compression and 28.2% lead in integer math indicate strong performance in data manipulation and general-purpose arithmetic. The AMD chip also holds a higher average benchmark score (49796 vs 41621), a 19.5% gap, and ranks in the 90th percentile versus the Intel chip's 88th percentile.

The choice depends on workload emphasis. For mixed productivity, scientific calculations, and encryption-heavy tasks, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H delivers more wins. For integer-heavy data processing, compression tasks, and workloads using extended instruction sets, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 holds clear advantages. The Intel chip operates at a lower 28 W TDP compared to AMD's 55 W TDP, which matters for thermal design in thin laptops. The AMD part offers quad-channel memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s, a factor for memory-intensive applications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins the Cinebench suite decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 19940 against AMD's 18759, a 5.9% lead. Single-core R23 shows 2080 versus 1960, a 5.8% gap. The older R15 tests show similar patterns: multi-core 2989 vs 2872 (3.9%) and single-core 307 vs 298 (2.9%).

PassMark results reveal a more complex picture. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins PassMark integer math with 109588 versus 85479, a 28.2% advantage. Data compression goes to AMD at 400887 versus 334711, a 19.8% lead. Extended instructions favor AMD by 22.1% (32719 vs 26805). Random string sorting is a narrower AMD win: 43196 vs 40742, a 6% margin.

The Intel part dominates several PassMark workloads. Floating-point math shows Intel at 109123 versus AMD's 72722, a 33.4% lead. Finding prime numbers is Intel's largest victory: 335 versus 145, a 56.7% margin. Data encryption favors Intel 26005 vs 20092, a 22.7% gap. Physics scores go to Intel 2497 vs 1843, a 26.2% difference. PassMark multi-thread shows a narrow Intel win at 34027 vs 33486, only 1.6%. Single-thread PassMark also goes to Intel: 4334 vs 4185, a 3.4% edge.

The Intel chip's overall win count of 11 versus AMD's 4 reflects its strength across diverse workloads. Yet AMD's wins are concentrated in areas where its margin is large, particularly integer math and data compression, suggesting specialized efficiency rather than broad superiority.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ substantially: AMD uses 8 cores with 16 threads, while Intel uses 16 cores with 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for AMD and 2.20 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks favor Intel at 5.30 GHz versus AMD's 5.00 GHz. TDP differs significantly: AMD is rated at 55 W, Intel at 28 W.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses Intel BGA 2049. Cache layouts differ: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 24 MB shared L3.

Memory support differs: AMD supports LPDDR5X only with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ: AMD has Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), Intel has Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 8060S, Intel uses Arc Graphics 140T. The AMD part was released later, on January 5, 2026, versus Intel's January 12, 2025. Process nodes differ: AMD uses TSMC 4 nm, Intel uses TSMC 3 nm. The AMD die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², while Intel's die size is not recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, part of the Ryzen AI Max generation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-H codename, part of the Core Ultra Series 2 generation.

Process node differences are notable: AMD is fabricated on 4 nm, Intel on 3 nm, both by TSMC. The manufacturing process difference may contribute to Intel's lower 28 W TDP despite having double the core count. Intel's smaller process node allows more cores within a similar thermal envelope.

The core count disparity is architectural: Intel uses 16 cores with 16 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, while AMD uses 8 cores with 16 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading. This explains why both have equal thread counts despite different core counts. Intel's per-core L1 cache is 192 KB versus AMD's 80 KB, and Intel's per-core L2 is 3 MB versus AMD's 1 MB. AMD compensates with a larger shared L3 pool at 32 MB versus Intel's 24 MB.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. AMD's quad-channel LPDDR5X support with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is twice Intel's dual-channel 102.4 GB/s figure. This bandwidth advantage likely contributes to AMD's strong data compression and integer math results. Intel's support for both DDR5 and LPDDR5X offers platform flexibility, while AMD is limited to LPDDR5X.

PCIe generation differs: Intel provides Gen 5 with 8 lanes, AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Gen 5 doubles per-lane bandwidth, but AMD offers double the lane count. The integrated graphics solutions are different products: AMD's Radeon 8060S versus Intel's Arc Graphics 140T.

Release timing shows the AMD part launched about a year after the Intel part, suggesting a newer design cycle. The production status for both is recorded as active.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 265H wins in rendering workloads, as shown by its Cinebench R15 and R23 victories in both single-core and multi-core tests. Its 5.9% multi-core lead in R23 suggests better sustained all-core rendering performance. The Intel chip also wins floating-point math by 33.4%, making it suited for scientific simulations, 3D modeling, and physics calculations. Its 56.7% lead in prime number finding indicates strength in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads. Data encryption favors Intel by 22.7%, useful for security applications, VPNs, and encrypted storage. Physics scores favor Intel by 26.2%, relevant for gaming physics and engineering simulations. PassMark multi-thread and single-thread scores both go to Intel, indicating broad general-purpose competence.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in data compression by 19.8%, which benefits file archiving, database operations, and data transfer tasks. Its integer math lead of 28.2% is its largest margin, favoring computational workloads that rely on integer arithmetic, such as financial modeling, cryptography (despite the encryption test going to Intel), and certain scientific computations. Extended instructions show a 22.1% AMD advantage, indicating strong SIMD and specialized instruction set performance for multimedia processing and vectorized workloads. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 6%, relevant for data sorting and text processing applications.

The overall win distribution suggests the Intel chip is the more versatile daily driver, with wins across rendering, floating-point, encryption, physics, and general single-threaded tasks. The AMD chip excels in specific data-centric workloads where its memory bandwidth and integer throughput provide clear advantages. The AMD part's higher average benchmark score and 90th percentile ranking versus Intel's 88th indicate that when AMD wins, it wins by larger margins. The Intel chip's 11 wins include many narrow margins (1.6% to 5.9%), while AMD's 4 wins include margins of 6% to 28.2%.