AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 5 130HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and Intel Core 5 130HL present a stark contrast in measured performance. The database records a complete benchmark suite for the AMD part, while the Intel processor has no recorded benchmark scores, leaving its average benchmark score at zero. This absence of data shapes the entire comparison.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers a multithread score of 45231 in the PassMark suite. This result places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database, indicating top-tier performance among recorded processors. The single-thread score of 3927 reinforces this position, showing strong per-core capability as well.

The Intel Core 5 130HL sits at the 50th percentile, exactly the median of all recorded CPUs, with an average benchmark score of zero due to missing test data. Without recorded scores for integer math, floating point math, encryption, compression, or any other PassMark test, the Intel processor cannot be directly compared numerically on any specific workload.

In the absence of head-to-head benchmark entries, the recorded data for the AMD part stands alone. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 achieves 554760 in data compression, 27784 in data encryption, and 45666 in extended instructions. Its floating point math score reaches 99548, while integer math hits 152414. Physics processing scores 2887, and random string sorting completes at 59487.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 provide context for its average benchmark score of 90541. The Intel Xeon 654 averages 90717, a delta of -0.2% relative to the AMD part, meaning the Ryzen trails by a negligible margin. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX averages 91199, putting it 0.7% ahead of the AI Max+ 392. Conversely, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X averages 88172, which is 2.7% behind the AMD part, and the Intel Xeon 6736P averages 87864, trailing by 3%.

These rival deltas show that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 operates in a performance band where the closest competitors are high-end server and mobile workstation processors. The differences are small, with the largest gap being 3% in favor of the AMD chip against the Xeon 6736P. This tight clustering suggests the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers competitive throughput against established heavyweights.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins on every measurable benchmark category because it is the only one of the two with recorded scores. Its multithread score of 45231 demonstrates strong parallel workload handling, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. The single-thread score of 3927 shows capable single-core execution, a result of the 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Data compression at 554760 indicates efficient memory and cache utilization. The 64 MB shared L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth support this outcome. Encryption throughput of 27784 reflects the processor's ability to handle cryptographic workloads with the available instruction set. Extended instructions score 45666, showing strong SIMD and specialized instruction performance.

Floating point math at 99548 and integer math at 152414 demonstrate balanced arithmetic capability across both numeric domains. Physics processing at 2887 indicates competent simulation performance, while random string sorting at 59487 shows strong memory access patterns and sorting algorithm execution.

The Intel Core 5 130HL cannot claim any benchmark wins because the database contains no scores for it. Its 12 cores and 16 threads suggest a hybrid architecture, but without recorded results, no performance conclusions can be drawn from measurements. The processor's 50th percentile ranking reflects only its position among all CPUs, not any specific test outcome, since its average benchmark score is zero.

For use-case analysis, the AMD part's recorded scores map to specific workload types. The high compression and encryption scores suit data-intensive tasks such as database operations and secure communications. The strong integer and floating point scores fit scientific computing and financial modeling. The extended instructions score supports media encoding and decoding workloads that leverage SIMD operations.

The Intel part's specifications suggest it targets desktop applications with a lower 45 W TDP, but the absence of benchmark data prevents any measured performance claims. Its dual-channel memory support and 18 MB shared L3 cache indicate a more modest memory subsystem than the AMD part's quad-channel configuration, but these are architectural observations, not performance verdicts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the codename Strix Halo. The Intel Core 5 130HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture on a 10 nm process from Intel, with the codename Raptor Lake-PS. These process nodes represent different manufacturing generations, with the 4 nm node allowing denser transistor packing and potentially lower power per operation.

Both processors feature 12 cores, but the thread counts differ. The AMD part supports 24 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part supports 16 threads, indicating a hybrid core arrangement typical of Raptor Lake designs where performance cores and efficiency cores share the workload without full multithreading on all cores.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part also has 80 KB of L1 per core but doubles L2 to 2 MB per core while reducing shared L3 to 18 MB. The L3 difference is substantial, with the AMD part offering over 3.5 times more shared cache, which supports larger working sets and improved data locality.

Memory support separates the two clearly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 130HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity differs, with the AMD part providing 16 Gen 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides 8 Gen 4 lanes. This affects expansion capability for GPUs, NVMe storage, and other peripherals. The integrated graphics also differ: the AMD part includes Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, a mobile-focused socket, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket. The market segments reflect this: the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 targets mobile, and the Core 5 130HL targets desktop. The AMD part's release date is recorded as 2026-01-05, while the Intel part's release date is 2024-04-07, indicating different product lifecycles.

Clock speeds favor the AMD part with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to the Intel part's 2.60 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The TDP also differs, with the AMD part rated at 55 W and the Intel part at 45 W, a modest power envelope gap given the performance differences in the recorded data.

The AMD part's die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet design, while no die size is recorded for the Intel part. The AMD part's part number is 100-000001979, while the Intel part's part number is listed as unknown. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported for either.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both processors have 12 cores, but the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports 24 threads while the Intel Core 5 130HL supports 16 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count.

Q: What are the benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 130HL?

A: The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for the Intel Core 5 130HL. Its average benchmark score is zero, and its percentile ranking of 50 reflects its position among all CPUs but not any specific test result.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD part averages 90541 across benchmarks. It trails the Intel Xeon 654 by 0.2% and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX by 0.7%, while leading the Intel Xeon w7-2575X by 2.7% and the Intel Xeon 6736P by 3%.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel Core 5 130HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with no recorded bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 5 130HL has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part also has 1 MB of L2 per core versus the Intel part's 2 MB per core.

Q: What are the integrated graphics on each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 includes Radeon 8060S integrated graphics. The Intel Core 5 130HL includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. No benchmark scores are recorded for either integrated graphics solution.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 | Intel Core 5 130HL |

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

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| 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 (CPU only) | Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

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

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

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

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | Not recorded |

| Part Number | 100-000001979 | Unknown |

| Average Benchmark Score | 90541 | 0 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 96 | 50 |