AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unambiguous outcome: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390. The Intel part posts a 26.3% advantage across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multi-core, and it also leads in all nine PassMark workloads. The average benchmark score confirms the gap: the Intel processor scores 75,488 versus 56,273 for the AMD chip, a difference that places the Intel part in the 95th percentile of all CPUs while the AMD chip sits in the 91st percentile.

For a desktop builder prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the clear choice. Its largest wins come in floating-point math, where it leads by 53.5%, and in data encryption, where it leads by 46.5%. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 does not win a single recorded workload, so there is no scenario in the data where it outperforms the Intel part. However, the AMD chip is a mobile processor with a 55 W TDP, while the Intel part is a desktop chip with a 65 W TDP, so the comparison reflects different intended usage environments. The data shows the Intel part is faster everywhere, but the AMD part consumes less power and targets mobile systems.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process, with a Strix Halo codename and a mobile market segment. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture on TSMC's 3 nm process, with an Arrow Lake-S codename and a desktop market segment. It has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning no hyperthreading, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.60 GHz.

The cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD chip has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite having less L3, the Intel part compensates with more L1 and L2 per core, which helps its single-thread performance. The Intel die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, while the AMD die is composed of two 70.6 mm² tiles.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD chip uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel chip uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD chip has a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel chip has Arc Xe-LPG Graphics with 64 execution units. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579. The AMD part's socket is AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every multi-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48,945 versus 36,064 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, a 26.3% lead. PassMark multithread shows a similar gap: 56,602 versus 41,737.

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 better in single-core performance?

A: No. The Intel part wins all single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel scores 6,909 versus 5,091 for the AMD chip, another 26.3% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4,881 versus 4,028, a 17.5% lead for Intel.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Both support the same number of threads, but the Intel part has twice as many physical cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD chip has 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth using quad-channel LPDDR5X. The Intel chip has 102.4 GB/s using dual-channel DDR5. The AMD part offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel part also has a lower base clock at 2.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the AMD chip.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 have a locked multiplier, so neither supports manual overclocking according to the recorded specifications.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The AMD base clock is 3.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for Intel, but the Intel boost clock is 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for AMD. The TDP differs: 55 W for the AMD part, 65 W for the Intel part.

The process node favors Intel at 3 nm versus 4 nm for AMD, both from TSMC. The Intel die is 243 mm² with 17,800 million transistors, while the AMD die is two tiles at 70.6 mm² each. Cache configurations are different: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 shared; Intel has 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB L3 shared.

Memory support differs completely. AMD uses LPDDR5X with quad-channel and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses DDR5 with dual-channel and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC. PCIe lanes favor Intel: Gen 5 with 20 lanes versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD. The integrated graphics are different: Radeon 8050S for AMD, Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU for Intel. The AMD part targets mobile with Socket FP11, while the Intel part targets desktop with Socket 1851. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent: the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every single test. The smallest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Intel part scores 164,869 versus 146,519 for the AMD chip, an 11.1% lead. The largest margin is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Intel part scores 194,988 versus 90,594, a 53.5% advantage. That floating-point result is the standout difference in the entire dataset.

In Cinebench R15, the Intel part scores 4,933 multi-core and 696 single-core, while the AMD chip scores 3,635 and 513 respectively. Both tests show the same 26.3% delta. Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern: Intel at 20,556 multi-core and 2,901 single-core, AMD at 15,146 and 2,138. Cinebench R23 shows Intel at 48,945 multi-core and 6,909 single-core, AMD at 36,064 and 5,091. Every Cinebench test, regardless of version or core count, shows exactly a 26.3% lead for Intel.

PassMark results vary more widely. Data compression shows Intel at 602,121 versus 487,145, a 19.1% lead. Data encryption is a 46.5% lead for Intel: 46,949 versus 25,097. Extended instructions show a 14.6% lead: 45,357 versus 38,716. Find prime numbers shows a 31.2% lead: 459 versus 316. Floating-point math is the 53.5% blowout. Integer math is the closest at 11.1%. Multithread shows 56,602 versus 41,737, a 26.3% lead. Physics shows 3,598 versus 2,761, a 23.3% lead. Random string sorting shows 73,651 versus 53,113, a 27.9% lead. Single-thread tests show 4,881 versus 4,028, a 17.5% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in every recorded category, so the data does not show any workload where the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 takes the lead. The Intel part's strongest areas are floating-point math and encryption, where its leads exceed 46%. These results indicate an advantage in scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload relying on heavy mathematical operations. The Intel part also leads in all Cinebench tests by a uniform 26.3%, suggesting a consistent architectural advantage in rendering and multi-threaded content creation.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 does have some qualitative advantages from the specification sheet, even though no benchmark win appears in the data. It offers 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, more than double the Intel part's 102.4 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound workloads that do not appear in the recorded benchmark set. It also has a lower TDP at 55 W versus 65 W, making it a more power-efficient option for mobile systems. The AMD part's Radeon 8050S integrated graphics may differ in capability from Intel's Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, though no graphics benchmarks appear in the data to confirm any advantage.

The Intel part's higher clock speed, 5.60 GHz boost versus 5.00 GHz for AMD, combined with more L1 and L2 cache per core, explains its single-thread dominance. The 24 physical cores versus 12 cores with SMT gives the Intel part a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, which the benchmark data confirms. The Intel part also has PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes, doubling the bandwidth potential of the AMD chip's PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, though no PCIe benchmarks appear in the data. For desktop users who prioritize raw performance, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the only choice supported by the recorded measurements. For mobile users who need lower power consumption and higher memory bandwidth, the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 remains a viable alternative, but the data shows no performance scenario where it beats the Intel part.