AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 5 120HL Comparison

# AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 5 120HL

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and Intel Core 5 120HL occupy different segments of the processor market, with the former targeting high-performance mobile computing and the latter aimed at desktop systems. The database records an average benchmark score of 90,541 for the AMD part, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part has no recorded benchmark data and sits at the 50th percentile. This disparity in measured performance and market positioning defines the comparison, though architectural differences and feature sets provide additional context for system integrators and analysts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 clearly dominates in computational workloads based on recorded PassMark scores. Its multithreaded score of 45,231, single-thread score of 3,927, and integer math result of 152,414 indicate strong performance across both parallel and latency-sensitive tasks. The data compression score of 554,760 and floating point math score of 99,548 further confirm its capability in data-intensive and scientific workloads. The extended instructions score of 45,666 shows robust SIMD and vector processing efficiency, while the find prime numbers score of 320 and physics score of 2,887 provide additional data points for algorithmic and simulation tasks. Random string sorting at 59,487 and data encryption at 27,784 round out a comprehensive benchmark profile that covers memory access patterns, cryptographic operations, and sorting algorithms.

The Intel Core 5 120HL has no recorded benchmark entries in the database, meaning there are no measured wins for this processor. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all CPUs, which suggests it is positioned for mainstream workloads rather than high-end compute. However, the absence of benchmark data means the database cannot confirm any specific performance advantages for the Intel part. The AMD processor's 96th percentile ranking, by contrast, indicates it outperforms the vast majority of CPUs in the database, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 654 (average score 90,717, delta -0.2%), AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91,199, delta -0.7%), Intel Xeon w7-2575X (88,172, delta 2.7%), and Intel Xeon 6736P (87,864, delta 3%). These deltas show the AMD part trails the top rivals by less than 1% but leads the lower-ranked Xeon parts by roughly 3%.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet design. Memory support covers LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S, and the socket is AMD Socket FP11. The TDP is 55 watts, and the release date is January 5, 2026.

The Intel Core 5 120HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename, built on Intel's 10 nm process. It also has 12 cores but only 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The cache configuration includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus; no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, and the socket is Intel Socket 1700. The TDP is 45 watts, and the release date is April 7, 2024. The launch MSRP is $279.

Key architectural differences include the process node (4 nm versus 10 nm), memory channel count (quad versus dual), L3 cache size (64 MB versus 18 MB), thread count (24 versus 16), and the presence of ECC support on the AMD side. The AMD part also offers higher memory bandwidth, more PCIe lanes, and a newer release date. The Intel part supports two memory types (DDR4 and DDR5) versus LPDDR5X only on the AMD side, and the Intel part has a lower TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Core 5 120HL boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both have 80 KB L1 per core, but the AMD part has 1 MB L2 per core and 64 MB shared L3, while the Intel part has 2 MB L2 per core and 18 MB shared L3.

Q: What memory types are supported?

A: The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus, while the Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 5 120HL does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD part has a TDP of 55 watts, and the Intel part has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: When was each processor released?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 was released on January 5, 2026, and the Intel Core 5 120HL was released on April 7, 2024.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 | Intel Core 5 120HL |

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

| Cores | 12 | 12 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Iris Xe Graphics 80EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-01-05 | 2024-04-07 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries for these two processors, but the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a full set of PassMark scores while the Intel Core 5 120HL has none. The AMD part's multithread score of 45,231 and single-thread score of 3,927 provide a baseline for comparison, though without Intel measurements, direct deltas cannot be calculated. The AMD processor's average benchmark score of 90,541 places it near the Intel Xeon 654 (90,717, delta -0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91,199, delta -0.7%), showing it is competitive with high-end server and mobile parts. The Intel Core 5 120HL's average score of 0 and 50th percentile ranking indicate it has not been measured in the database, leaving its performance profile undocumented.

The AMD part's data compression score of 554,760 is particularly notable, as it suggests strong memory bandwidth utilization, consistent with the 256.0 GB/s quad-channel LPDDR5X support. The floating point math score of 99,548 and integer math score of 152,414 indicate balanced ALU and FPU throughput, while the extended instructions score of 45,666 shows AVX-class workload capability. The encryption score of 27,784 and random string sorting score of 59,487 cover cryptographic and memory-intensive patterns. The physics score of 2,887 and find prime numbers score of 320 are lower relative to other metrics, but these are specialized workloads that may not reflect typical usage.

Given the Intel part's lack of recorded benchmarks, the data can only confirm that the AMD processor has a substantial measured performance advantage across all recorded test categories. The 96th versus 50th percentile ranking reinforces this gap, though the Intel part's 45 W TDP versus the AMD part's 55 W TDP suggests the Intel design targets lower power envelopes. The Intel part's support for DDR4 as well as DDR5, along with its older release date and desktop market segment, position it differently in the product stack. The AMD part's newer process node, higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, and ECC support give it architectural advantages that align with its higher measured performance and percentile ranking.