AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Intel Xeon 634 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear overall winner: the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 secures 16 out of 17 head-to-head victories against the Intel Xeon 634. The single exception, floating-point math, does not change the broader narrative of AMD’s dominance across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. While both processors occupy the 91st percentile in the database, the AMD part achieves a higher average benchmark score of 56273 compared to the Intel part’s 52974.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive margin comes from the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 scores 316 versus the Intel Xeon 634’s 196, a massive 61.2% advantage. This points to a significant difference in handling integer-heavy mathematical operations. Similarly, in PassMark integer math, AMD leads with a score of 146519 against Intel’s 117664, a 24.5% gap. The AMD chip also shows a strong edge in PassMark physics, recording 2761 points compared to 2250 for the Intel part, a 22.7% lead.

Across the Cinebench suite, the results are consistent and heavily favor AMD. The Ryzen AI Max 390 delivers 3635 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 3220 for the Xeon 634, a 12.9% difference. The single-core R15 test shows a 13% advantage for AMD, with scores of 513 and 454 respectively. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 and R23, with AMD leading by 12.9% in both multi-core and single-core runs of each version. The Ryzen AI Max 390 scores 15146 in R20 multi-core, while the Xeon 634 scores 13419; in R23 multi-core, AMD records 36064 against Intel’s 31950.

In other PassMark sub-tests, AMD maintains its lead, though with smaller margins. Data compression shows AMD ahead by 1.9%, with scores of 487145 and 477924. Data encryption favors AMD by 7%, at 25097 versus 23451. Extended instructions see AMD ahead by a narrow 1%, with scores of 38716 and 38320. Random string sorting gives AMD a 13% lead, recording 53113 against 47016. The PassMark multithread test shows an 11% advantage for AMD, with scores of 41737 and 37589. Single-thread performance in PassMark also favors AMD by 12.9%, with scores of 4028 versus 3567.

The only Intel victory is in PassMark floating-point math, where the Xeon 634 scores 93564 against AMD’s 90594, a 3.2% margin. This single win highlights a specific strength in floating-point computation, but it is an isolated result within a dataset that otherwise belongs to AMD.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Xeon 634 uses the Granite Rapids architecture with the same codename, built on a 5 nm process by Intel. Both have 12 cores and 24 threads, but the cache layouts differ notably.

AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a large shared 64 MB L3 cache. Intel’s design provides 112 KB of L1 cache per core and 2 MB of L2 cache per core, but its shared L3 cache is smaller at 48 MB. The larger L3 cache on the AMD chip likely contributes to its performance in multi-threaded and data-heavy workloads, as seen in its benchmark wins.

Clock speeds also diverge. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part operates at a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. This lower clock speed helps explain the consistent single-core deficit for Intel. The power envelope is another major separator: the AMD chip has a TDP of 55, while the Intel Xeon 634 draws 150. This makes the AMD part far more power-efficient on paper, a critical factor for mobile deployments.

Memory support differs as well. AMD uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. Intel uses DDR5 memory, also with a quad-channel bus, but its bandwidth is rated at 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is a significant point of divergence: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes. This gives the Xeon 634 a substantial advantage in expansion and I/O capabilities.

The AMD chip includes integrated graphics via the Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Xeon 634 has no integrated graphics. The die size also differs drastically, with AMD’s design using two dies of 70.6 mm² each, while Intel’s single die is 598 mm². The Intel part is unlocked, whereas the AMD chip is not. Their sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FP11, and Intel uses Socket 4710.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 is the clear winner for most compute-intensive tasks. Its 61.2% lead in prime number finding and 24.5% lead in integer math make it the stronger choice for software that relies on integer arithmetic, such as cryptography, compression, and general application logic. The 22.7% advantage in physics simulations indicates superior performance for gaming physics engines or scientific simulations that use rigid body dynamics. The consistent 12.9% to 13% leads across all Cinebench versions, both single and multi-core, show that AMD’s architecture excels in rendering and 3D modeling workloads.

The AMD chip’s 13% lead in random string sorting is relevant for database and text processing tasks. Its 11% advantage in multithreaded PassMark suggests strong parallel workload handling. Data compression and encryption also favor AMD, by 1.9% and 7% respectively, making it a solid option for file archiving and secure data handling. The inclusion of integrated graphics on the AMD chip means it can handle display output without a discrete GPU, which is not possible with the Intel part.

The Intel Xeon 634 wins only in floating-point math, with a 3.2% margin. This makes it the preferred processor for workloads heavily reliant on floating-point calculations, such as certain scientific computing, financial modeling, or signal processing tasks. Its 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and unlocked multiplier also make it more suited for workstation configurations that require extensive expansion, multiple GPUs, or high-speed storage arrays. The larger die size and Intel’s own foundry process are architectural choices that favor raw compute in specific domains.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 is the superior processor for the vast majority of benchmark scenarios. It wins 16 of 17 tests, including every Cinebench iteration and 15 of the 17 PassMark sub-tests. The only Intel win, floating-point math, is narrow at 3.2% and does not offset the wide margins AMD achieves elsewhere, such as the 61.2% lead in prime number finding. For users seeking maximum performance in single-threaded tasks, multi-threaded rendering, integer-heavy workloads, or physics simulations, the AMD chip is the correct choice based on the recorded data.

The Intel Xeon 634, however, retains a role for specific use cases. Its 150 TDP and server/workstation market segment, combined with 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, point to a system designed for maximum I/O throughput and expansion capability, not necessarily raw CPU speed. The unlocked multiplier also appeals to users who intend to overclock. Its advantage in floating-point math makes it relevant for niche scientific or analytical workloads. For a user building a high-expansion workstation with multiple accelerators, the Intel part’s platform features may outweigh its benchmark deficit.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 wins all single-core tests. It leads by 13% in Cinebench R15, 12.9% in Cinebench R20, 12.9% in Cinebench R23, and 12.9% in PassMark single-thread.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core workloads?

A: AMD wins every multi-core test. The lead is 12.9% in all three Cinebench versions, and 11% in PassMark multithread. The AMD chip scores 36064 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 31950 for the Intel Xeon 634.

Q: Is there any test where the Intel Xeon 634 outperforms the AMD chip?

A: Yes, in PassMark floating-point math, the Intel Xeon 634 scores 93564 against 90594 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390, a 3.2% margin.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s with LPDDR5X memory, while the Intel Xeon 634 has 204.8 GB/s with DDR5 memory.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 includes a Radeon 8050S integrated GPU. The Intel Xeon 634 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 | Intel Xeon 634 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 | 150 |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 4710 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Granite Rapids |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 112 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 48 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 80 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-02-01 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $499 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001423 | SA2DL |