AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 3 304

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between these two mobile processors. Across the eleven shared PassMark benchmark tests, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every single one, with the Intel Core 3 304 failing to claim a single victory. The scale of the advantage varies dramatically by workload, ranging from a modest single-digit lead in single-thread performance to a massive 518.6% margin in integer math.

The largest delta appears in the passmark_integer_math test. The AMD part scores 152,414 against Intel's 24,640, a difference of 518.6%. This indicates that the AMD processor's integer execution resources, likely tied to its 12 cores and 24 threads, are vastly more capable than the 5-core, 5-thread Intel part. Similarly, the passmark_data_compression test shows AMD at 554,760 versus Intel's 114,775, a 383.3% advantage, which directly reflects the core-count disparity in heavily threaded workloads.

The extended instructions benchmark tells a similar story. AMD posts 45,666 while Intel manages only 9,686, a 371.5% lead for the Ryzen chip. This workload often scales with both core count and instruction-set efficiency, and the data confirms AMD's dominance here. Prime number finding shows a 370.6% margin (320 versus 68), and random string sorting shows a 335.5% gap (59,487 versus 13,659). These results all follow the same pattern: the more parallel the workload, the larger the AMD advantage.

Even in less parallel tasks, AMD holds the edge. The passmark_floating_point_math test shows AMD at 99,548 against Intel's 29,722, a 234.9% lead. The physics test, scoring 2,887 versus 868, gives AMD a 232.6% margin. Data encryption shows AMD at 27,784 versus 8,501, a 226.8% lead. These are substantial gaps, though smaller than the pure integer and compression results.

The closest contest is in single-thread performance. The passmark_single_thread test shows AMD at 3,927 and Intel at 3,614, a delta of just 8.7%. This is the only benchmark where the two processors are in the same general performance class. The Intel Core 3 304's single-core score of 3,614 is respectable, and the AMD part's 3,927 is only modestly higher. This suggests that for lightly threaded tasks, the user experience would be more similar, but the AMD chip still takes the win.

The multithread benchmark, which is often a good overall indicator of sustained parallel performance, shows AMD at 45,231 against Intel's 11,625, a 289.1% lead. This result aligns with the average benchmark scores: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average score of 90,541, while the Intel Core 3 304 sits at 13,745. The AMD chip's percentile ranking of 96 versus Intel's 68 further contextualizes the gap, placing the AMD part in the top tier of all CPUs while the Intel part sits in the upper mid-range.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3,927 in the passmark_single_thread test, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 3,614. The AMD part leads by 8.7%.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In the passmark_multithread test, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 versus the Intel Core 3 304's 11,625, a 289.1% advantage for AMD.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90,541, and the Intel Core 3 304 has an average of 13,745. The AMD chip also ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, versus the 68th percentile for the Intel part.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 304 win any of the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: No. The data records 11 wins for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and 0 wins for the Intel Core 3 304 across all shared tests.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest delta is in passmark_integer_math, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 152,414 versus 24,640 for the Intel Core 3 304, a 518.6% difference.

Q: How do the two compare in data compression?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 554,760 in passmark_data_compression, while the Intel Core 3 304 scores 114,775, giving AMD a 383.3% lead.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the overwhelmingly faster processor in nearly every measured category. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide a massive parallel-processing advantage over the Intel Core 3 304's 5 cores and 5 threads. The average benchmark scores (90,541 versus 13,745) and percentile rankings (96 versus 68) confirm that the AMD part is in a different performance class entirely.

For users who run heavily threaded applications, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, or data analysis, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. Its multithread score of 45,231 is nearly four times the Intel part's 11,625, and its integer math lead of 518.6% suggests exceptional throughput in compute-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core 3 304's only competitive area is single-thread performance, where it trails by just 8.7%. For users whose workloads are predominantly single-threaded, the experience would be closer, but the AMD chip still wins. The Intel part's lower core count and thread count limit its appeal for anything beyond basic productivity. The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the superior processor for almost all scenarios, with the Intel Core 3 304 suitable only for light, single-threaded tasks where its lower power envelope might be a factor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their core configurations. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz, whereas the Intel part has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) also differs significantly: the AMD chip is rated at 55 watts, while the Intel chip is at 15 watts.

Memory support separates the two as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. PCIe connectivity differs, with the AMD chip offering Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Intel chip offering Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

The sockets are incompatible: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel BGA 1516. The integrated graphics differ, with the AMD part featuring Radeon 8060S and the Intel part featuring Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The Intel Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, and fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm². Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Intel Core 3 304 is based on the Wildcat Lake codename, fabricated on a 3 nm process by Intel. Its cache configuration is simpler: 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's much larger L3 cache, 64 MB versus 6 MB, is a substantial architectural advantage for workloads that benefit from large shared caches, such as database workloads or certain scientific computations.

The process nodes differ slightly, with Intel using a 3 nm process and AMD using 4 nm, but both are modern fabrication nodes. The AMD part has a larger die area due to its dual-die design and higher core count. The Intel part has no recorded die size. The AMD part's quad-channel memory controller with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth is a major architectural difference versus Intel's single-channel 59.7 GB/s, which directly impacts memory-bound workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its strengths are most pronounced in integer math, where it leads by 518.6%, and in data compression, where it leads by 383.3%. These results indicate that the AMD part is optimized for compute-heavy, parallel workloads such as scientific simulations, financial modeling, and large-scale data processing. The extended instructions lead of 371.5% further suggests strong performance in specialized instruction sets, beneficial for cryptography or signal processing.

The AMD part also dominates in multithread performance with a 289.1% lead, making it the preferred choice for rendering, video editing, and any workload that can utilize more than a few cores. The physics score of 2,887 versus 868, a 232.6% margin, points to strong performance in simulation and physics-based applications. The random string sorting result, a 335.5% lead, indicates efficiency in sorting and data manipulation tasks.

The Intel Core 3 304's only relative strength is in single-thread performance, where the gap narrows to 8.7%. This makes it a more reasonable choice for legacy applications or simple tasks that rely on a single core and cannot leverage multiple threads. Its lower 15-watt TDP also suggests it would be found in more power-constrained devices, though the data does not measure battery life or thermal behavior. For users with very light workloads, such as web browsing, document editing, or basic office productivity, the Intel part would be adequate, but the AMD chip remains faster in every measured metric. The data clearly favors the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 for any user who prioritizes raw performance, especially in multi-threaded scenarios.