AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 records an average benchmark score of 56,273, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H records 40,518, which places it in the 87th percentile.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 scores 36,064 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H scores 28,221. This gives AMD a 27.8% lead in that workload.

Q: Does the Intel chip win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins four test categories: PassMark data encryption, find prime numbers, floating point math, and physics. Its largest win is in floating point math, where it leads by 14.3%.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses dual-channel LPDDR5X with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 and Intel Core Ultra X7 368H represent fundamentally different design philosophies for mobile computing. AMD uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, built on the Strix Halo codename. Intel counters with the Panther Lake architecture on a 3 nm Intel process, using the Panther Lake-H generation.

The core configurations diverge sharply. AMD packs 12 physical cores with 24 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while Intel provides 16 physical cores but only 16 threads, indicating a design without hyper-threading. Both processors share a 5.00 GHz boost clock, but the base clocks differ substantially: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz, Intel at 2.00 GHz. The TDP ratings also contrast, with AMD at 55 watts and Intel at 25 watts.

Cache hierarchies reflect different strategies. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, then pools 64 MB of shared L3. Intel gives each core 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The larger AMD L3 cache likely supports its higher sustained throughput in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture shows another split. AMD uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. Intel uses dual-channel LPDDR5X at 153.6 GB/s and lacks ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics solutions diverge as well. AMD pairs its CPU with the Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses the Arc B390. Both target the mobile segment, and both are currently in active production. AMD's die consists of two 70.6 mm² chiplets, while Intel's die size is not recorded in the database. AMD uses Socket FP11; Intel uses BGA 2540.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, which wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins the remaining four.

The Cinebench suite demonstrates consistent AMD dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 3,635 against Intel's 2,844, a 27.8% margin. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 513 versus 401, also a 27.9% lead. Cinebench R20 repeats the multi-core gap at 27.8%, with AMD scoring 15,146 and Intel 11,852. Single-core R20 shows 2,138 versus 1,673, again 27.8%. Cinebench R23 continues the trend: multi-core 36,064 versus 28,221, and single-core 5,091 versus 3,984, both at 27.8% deltas.

The PassMark suite reveals where each chip excels. AMD's largest win comes in integer math, scoring 146,519 against Intel's 88,083, a 66.3% advantage. Data compression also favors AMD heavily: 487,145 versus 312,927, a 55.7% lead. Extended instructions show AMD ahead by 50.8%, with scores of 38,716 and 25,669. Random string sorting goes to AMD at 53,113 versus 38,093, a 39.4% margin. The multithread test shows AMD at 41,737 against Intel's 32,956, a 26.6% edge. Single-thread performance is nearly identical, with AMD leading by just 0.6% (4,028 versus 4,005).

Intel's wins are narrower but meaningful. Floating point math gives Intel its biggest margin: 105,681 versus 90,594, a 14.3% advantage. The physics test goes to Intel by 3.4%, scoring 2,857 versus 2,761. Find prime numbers shows Intel ahead by 1.6% (321 versus 316). Data encryption is essentially a tie, with Intel winning by only 0.5% (25,228 versus 25,097).

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications differ across nearly every major category.

• Cores: AMD has 12 cores, Intel has 16.
• Threads: AMD has 24 threads, Intel has 16.
• Base clock: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz, Intel at 2.00 GHz.
• Boost clock: Both reach 5.00 GHz.
• TDP: AMD is rated at 55 watts, Intel at 25 watts.
• Socket: AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2540.
• Architecture: AMD uses Zen 5, Intel uses Panther Lake.
• Process node: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm from Intel.
• L1 cache: AMD provides 80 KB per core, Intel provides 192 KB per core.
• L2 cache: AMD provides 1 MB per core, Intel provides 2.5 MB per core.
• L3 cache: AMD provides 64 MB shared, Intel provides 18 MB shared.
• Memory bus: AMD is quad-channel, Intel is dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: AMD delivers 256.0 GB/s, Intel delivers 153.6 GB/s.
• ECC memory: AMD supports it, Intel does not.
• PCIe: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel uses Gen 5 with 4 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: AMD uses Radeon 8050S, Intel uses Arc B390.
• Release date: AMD launched on January 5, 2025; Intel on January 4, 2026.
• Part number: AMD is 100-000001423, Intel is SA4R7Q9EJ.

Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and both are multiplier-unlocked false, meaning they cannot be overclocked via multiplier adjustment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 dominates the productivity and data-heavy segments. Its 64 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory subsystem give it substantial leads in integer math (66.3% ahead), data compression (55.7% ahead), and extended instructions (50.8% ahead). The Cinebench results, with a consistent 27.8% margin across all versions, indicate that AMD holds a firm advantage in rendering and multi-threaded content creation tasks. The 24 threads versus 16 threads likely drive much of this gap, along with the higher 3.20 GHz base clock. The 91st percentile ranking and average score of 56,273 place it among the top mobile processors in the database, with nearest rivals including the Intel Core i9-14900HX and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX, both within 0.6% of its average score.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in specific computational niches. Its floating point math score of 105,681 exceeds AMD by 14.3%, suggesting that its Panther Lake architecture handles certain numeric workloads more efficiently. The physics test result (2,857 versus 2,761) and prime number finding (321 versus 316) show small but consistent Intel advantages. The data encryption result is effectively a tie, with Intel ahead by only 0.5%. These wins cluster around single-threaded or specialized math operations, where Intel's 2.5 MB per-core L2 cache and 192 KB per-core L1 may provide an edge. The 87th percentile ranking places it near the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H and Intel Core 7 253PE, all within 0.2% of its average score.

The use-case split is clear from the data. AMD's processor suits sustained multi-threaded workloads, large data sets, and applications that benefit from high memory bandwidth. Intel's chip fits scenarios where floating point precision and low-power operation matter more, given its 25 watt TDP. The 16-core Intel design excels at parallel floating point math, but the lack of threads and smaller L3 cache limit its broader appeal. Overall, the database shows AMD winning the majority of tests by wide margins, while Intel captures narrower victories in specialized areas.