AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core counts compare between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and the Intel Processor 300?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. This is a 4x difference in both core and thread counts.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no listed boost clock, meaning it operates at a fixed frequency.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts. The AMD part draws more power, consistent with its larger core count.

Q: What memory types do the two CPUs support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and no specified memory bandwidth in the database.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses a Radeon 8060S iGPU, while the Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710. The database does not provide performance scores for either iGPU, so no direct comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 was released on 2026-01-05, while the Intel Processor 300 was released on 2024-01-07. The Intel part is roughly two years older in release timing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture on the Raptor Lake-S codename, built on a 10 nm process by Intel. The process node difference is significant: 4 nm versus 10 nm suggests the AMD part uses a more advanced manufacturing technology.

The die sizes reveal a stark contrast. The AMD processor uses a dual-die design with each die measuring 70.6 mm², totaling approximately 141.2 mm². The Intel processor uses a single die of 163 mm². Despite the Intel die being physically larger, it contains far fewer cores, indicating a less dense design.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. Both processors share the same L1 cache of 80 KB per core. However, the AMD part has 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel part has 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache shows the biggest gap: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Processor 300 has only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This fivefold difference in L3 capacity is likely to affect performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The AMD processor uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel processor uses DDR4 or DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no bandwidth figure recorded. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. PCIe support differs as well: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes, giving the Intel part a newer PCIe standard despite its older overall architecture.

The market segments differ: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel Processor 300 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so neither supports overclocking in the traditional sense.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Processor 300 sits at the 50th percentile. This 40-percentile gap is among the largest possible in the recorded data.

The AMD processor's average benchmark score is 49,796, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE (avg score 49,845, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-14600KF (avg score 49,394, delta 0.8%), the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (avg score 49,228, delta 1.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (avg score 49,196, delta 1.2%). These rivals are all high-end desktop or workstation processors, indicating that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 competes in a performance tier far above the Intel Processor 300.

The Intel Processor 300 has no benchmark scores recorded in the database and no nearest rivals listed. Its 50th percentile ranking places it at the median of all CPUs, which is a modest position. The absence of benchmark data for the Intel part makes a direct numeric comparison impossible, but the architectural differences alone suggest a massive performance gap.

The AMD processor is for users who need substantial multi-threaded throughput, given its 8 cores, 16 threads, large 32 MB L3 cache, and high memory bandwidth. The Intel Processor 300 is for basic desktop tasks where 2 cores and 4 threads suffice, such as simple office work or light web browsing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | Intel Processor 300 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 2 |

| Threads | 16 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | None listed |

| TDP | 55 W | 46 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-S |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 163 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | Not specified |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-01-05 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $82 |

| Part Number | 100-000001980 | SRN3J |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and the Intel Processor 300. The Intel Processor 300 has an empty benchmarks array, meaning no recorded scores exist for any test. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, however, has a full suite of benchmark results.

The AMD processor's Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 18,759, and its single-core score is 1,960. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,872 multi-core and 298 single-core. These scores place it in the top 10% of all CPUs, as indicated by its 90th percentile ranking.

PassMark results for the AMD part show a multi-thread score of 33,486 and a single-thread score of 4,185. Integer math scores 109,588, floating point math scores 72,722, and extended instructions score 32,719. Data compression scores 400,887, data encryption scores 20,092, and random string sorting scores 43,196. Physics scores 1,843, and finding prime numbers scores 145.

The average benchmark score for the AMD processor is 49,796. For context, its closest rival, the Intel Core 9 273PE, has an average score of 49,845, which is only 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i5-14600KF scores 49,394, which is 0.8% lower. The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 scores 49,228, which is 1.2% lower, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G scores 49,196, also 1.2% lower.

Without any benchmark data for the Intel Processor 300, the numeric comparison is one-sided. The AMD part's 90th percentile ranking versus the Intel part's 50th percentile ranking is the only direct comparative metric available. This percentile gap indicates that the AMD processor outperforms a large majority of CPUs, while the Intel processor sits at the median.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in every performance category that has recorded data. Its 8 cores and 16 threads give it a massive multi-threading advantage, evidenced by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 18,759 and PassMark multi-thread score of 33,486. The 32 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-intensive workloads like compression, encryption, and random string sorting, where the AMD part scores 400,887, 20,092, and 43,196 respectively.

The AMD processor also wins in single-threaded performance based on its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,960 and PassMark single-thread score of 4,185. Its boost clock of 5.00 GHz provides higher peak frequency than the Intel part's fixed 3.90 GHz. The Radeon 8060S iGPU is likely more capable than Intel's UHD Graphics 710, though the database lacks direct iGPU scores.

The Intel Processor 300 wins in a few specific areas based on specification data. Its base clock of 3.90 GHz is higher than the AMD part's 3.60 GHz, which could benefit lightly threaded workloads that rely on sustained frequency rather than boost behavior. Its TDP of 46 watts is lower than the AMD part's 55 watts, indicating lower power consumption. The Intel part supports PCIe Gen 5, which is a newer standard than AMD's PCIe Gen 4, potentially offering higher bandwidth for compatible devices.

The Intel part also has a smaller L2 cache per core at 1.25 MB versus 1 MB, though this advantage is minor. Its desktop market segment and Socket 1700 compatibility may be preferable for users building traditional desktop systems, while the AMD part targets mobile platforms with Socket FP11.

For users prioritizing raw performance, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the clear choice. For users prioritizing lower power consumption, fixed clock behavior, PCIe Gen 5 support, or a lower launch price, the Intel Processor 300 has specific advantages. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $82, and it targets basic computing needs where 2 cores and 4 threads are sufficient. The AMD part targets demanding workloads where its 8 cores, 16 threads, and large cache provide substantial throughput advantages.