AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285 represent two very different approaches to high-performance computing, one aimed at mobile platforms and the other at desktop systems. The benchmark data in our database shows a clear and consistent performance hierarchy between them, with the Intel part dominating every recorded test. The AMD chip, while competitive in its own segment, trails significantly across all measured workloads, from single-threaded tasks to heavily multithreaded rendering. This analysis breaks down the recorded scores, architectural differences, and what the data means for potential use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons recorded in the database, with no benchmark victories for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The margins vary by workload, but the pattern is unequivocal. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 48,945 against AMD's 18,759, a delta of -61.7%. This is the largest performance gap in the entire comparison. The single-core Cinebench R23 result is similarly lopsided: Intel scores 6,909 versus AMD's 1,960, a delta of -71.6%. These two tests alone indicate a fundamental difference in both per-core efficiency and raw multi-threaded throughput.

The Cinebench R15 results follow the same trend. In multi-core, Intel posts 4,933 against AMD's 2,872, a -41.8% delta. Single-core R15 shows Intel at 696 versus AMD's 298, a -57.2% delta. The margin narrows somewhat in PassMark's single-thread test, where Intel scores 4,881 and AMD scores 4,185, a delta of -14.3%. This is the closest result in the entire dataset, suggesting that in lightly threaded, short-duration workloads, the AMD architecture is relatively more competitive. However, even here, Intel holds a clear advantage.

Moving to compute-heavy PassMark workloads, the gap widens again. Floating point math shows Intel at 194,988 versus AMD's 72,722, a -62.7% delta. Integer math is closer but still decisively Intel's: 164,869 versus 109,588, a -33.5% delta. Find prime numbers shows Intel at 459 versus AMD's 145, a -68.4% delta, indicating a substantial difference in raw integer throughput per cycle. Extended instructions (SIMD) favor Intel at 45,357 versus 32,719, a -27.9% delta, the second-closest result after single-thread.

Data-centric workloads reinforce the pattern. Data compression shows Intel at 602,121 versus AMD's 400,887, a -33.4% delta. Data encryption shows Intel at 46,949 versus AMD's 20,092, a -57.2% delta. Random string sorting shows Intel at 73,651 versus AMD's 43,196, a -41.4% delta. The PassMark multi-thread score, which aggregates many of these operations, gives Intel 56,602 against AMD's 33,486, a -40.8% delta. The physics test, which often reflects gaming-adjacent simulation workloads, shows Intel at 3,598 versus AMD's 1,843, a -48.8% delta.

The average benchmark score in the database tells the same story. Intel's average is 75,488, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs. AMD's average is 49,796, placing it at the 90th percentile. The nearest rival data for each chip underscores their respective competitive positions. Intel's closest rivals are server-class AMD EPYC parts (8224P, 4545P) and high-end Ryzen 7 PRO chips, all within 0.3% of its average score. AMD's closest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE and Intel Core i5-14600KF, with deltas of -0.1% and 0.8% respectively, indicating that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 sits in a different performance tier entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its wins span single-core, multi-core, integer, floating point, encryption, compression, and physics workloads. The smallest margin is 14.3% in single-thread, and the largest is 71.6% in Cinebench R23 single-core. No workload category in the database favors the AMD part. The Intel chip also holds a higher percentile rank, 95th versus 90th, and a substantially higher average benchmark score of 75,488 versus 49,796.

Given this data, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the appropriate choice for any application where raw CPU performance is the primary criterion. Its 24 cores and 24 threads, combined with a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, deliver results that place it among the top 5% of all CPUs in our database. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, with 8 cores and 16 threads, is not competitive in this direct comparison. However, the context matters: the AMD part is a mobile processor (Socket FP11, 55W TDP) while the Intel part is a desktop processor (Socket 1851, 65W TDP). The performance gap largely reflects this form factor difference.

From a pure performance standpoint, the verdict is simple. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every head-to-head test. For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, data processing, or any compute-intensive task, the Intel part is the superior choice based on the recorded numbers. The AMD chip, while not competitive here, may serve a different role in a mobile or power-constrained environment, but the benchmark data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the Intel part.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head results, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every measured category. There is no benchmark in the database where the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 takes the lead. The closest margin is in PassMark single-thread (14.3% delta), which suggests that for very short, single-threaded bursts, the AMD chip is relatively less disadvantaged. Still, it loses.

The Intel part shows its largest advantages in Cinebench R23 single-core (71.6%) and multi-core (61.7%), indicating a dominant position in both lightly and heavily threaded productivity workloads. It also leads decisively in floating-point math (62.7%) and find prime numbers (68.4%), pointing to strong per-core arithmetic capability. For data encryption (57.2%) and random string sorting (41.4%), the Intel chip maintains a solid edge, making it the better option for security-related and text-processing tasks.

The AMD part has no recorded wins, so its "winning" case is limited to the fact that its deficits are smaller in some areas. Its best relative performance is in single-thread (14.3% delta) and extended instructions (27.9% delta). In these workloads, the AMD chip is closer to the Intel part, but still behind. For a user constrained to the mobile platform (Socket FP11), the AMD part offers a Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, which the Intel part does not match in the data, but no GPU benchmarks are recorded here.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18,759, a delta of -61.7%.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel scores 6,909 and AMD scores 1,960, a delta of -71.6%. In PassMark single-thread, Intel scores 4,881 and AMD scores 4,185, a delta of -14.3%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488 and ranks at the 95th percentile. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average of 49,796 and ranks at the 90th percentile.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a TDP of 65W, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a TDP of 55W.

Q: How do they compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 supports dual-channel DDR5 with a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different architectures and target different platforms. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It has 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm². Its cache hierarchy consists of 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. It uses AMD Socket FP11, a mobile platform, and supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture, codenamed Arrow Lake-S, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. It has 24 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz. The die size is 243 mm², and the transistor count is 17,800 million. Its cache hierarchy consists of 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. It uses Intel Socket 1851, a desktop platform, and supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics are Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

Memory support differs significantly. AMD uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. Intel uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. Despite the lower bandwidth, the Intel part still outperforms AMD in all compute tests, indicating that raw memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these workloads. PCIe support also differs: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part also has a higher TDP at 65W compared to AMD's 55W, though both are relatively efficient for their respective classes.

The release dates differ as well: AMD's part is dated January 5, 2026, while Intel's is dated December 31, 2024. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579, while AMD's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production status. The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 2, while the AMD part is part of the Ryzen AI Max generation, highlighting their different market positioning: desktop versus mobile.