AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 7 150HL Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a full suite of PassMark benchmark results, while the Intel Core 7 150HL has no benchmark entries in the database. This asymmetry means the analysis must rely on the AMD part's measured scores, its percentile ranking, and the architectural specifications of both processors. The Intel Core 7 150HL's absence of benchmark data does not permit a direct score-by-score comparison, but the available specifications and the AMD part's position against its nearest rivals provide a clear picture of where each design is intended to excel.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins outright in every measurable benchmark category, simply because it is the only one of the two with recorded scores. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3927 and multithread score of 45231 indicate a processor that delivers strong performance in both lightly threaded and heavily threaded workloads. The data shows that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms the vast majority of processors in the database. Its average benchmark score of 90541 places it within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 654 (which scores 90717) and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (which scores 91199), showing that it competes directly with high-end workstation and enthusiast mobile parts.

The Intel Core 7 150HL, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 0 and sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs. The 50th percentile ranking, while based on no direct measurements, suggests that the database treats it as a mid-range performer, but without actual scores, no wins can be attributed to it. The architecture and specifications, however, indicate its intended strengths: it uses a Raptor Lake design with 14 cores and 20 threads, which is a hybrid configuration typical of Intel's mainstream desktop and high-performance mobile parts. Its dual-channel memory support and DDR4/DDR5 compatibility point toward a processor designed for broad platform compatibility rather than maximum memory bandwidth.

The use-case split is therefore clear from the data. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is positioned for compute-heavy tasks where its measured scores and architectural features, such as 64 MB of shared L3 cache and quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, deliver substantial throughput. The Intel Core 7 150HL, lacking any measured scores, cannot be said to win any benchmark, but its specifications suggest it is built for cost-sensitive desktop systems where its 45 W TDP and Socket 1700 compatibility allow for simpler cooling and motherboard options. The data shows that any workload requiring high multithreaded performance, data encryption, or floating-point math would favor the AMD part, while the Intel part's role is defined by its absence of data, leaving it as a speculative option for users prioritizing platform maturity over peak performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying designs, as recorded in the database. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory subsystem is quad-channel LPDDR5X with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S, and the socket is AMD Socket FP11, which is a mobile-oriented package. The PCIe support is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and the thermal design power is 55 W.

The Intel Core 7 150HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture, codenamed Raptor Lake-PS, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. It features 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory subsystem is dual-channel, supporting both DDR4 and DDR5, with no recorded bandwidth figure. It does not support ECC memory. The integrated graphics are Iris Xe Graphics 96EU, and the socket is Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop platform. The PCIe support is Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only), and the thermal design power is 45 W.

The manufacturing process differences are stark: the AMD part uses a 4 nm node from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm node from Intel's own fabs. This process gap typically allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency, which is reflected in the AMD part's higher TDP of 55 W despite having fewer cores (12 versus 14). The cache differences are also notable. The AMD part has 64 MB of shared L3, while the Intel part has 24 MB, a 40 MB difference that favors AMD for workloads with large working sets. The L2 cache per core is larger on the Intel part (2 MB versus 1 MB), but the total cache footprint is still dominated by AMD's L3.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The AMD part uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, which is a high-bandwidth configuration typical of integrated graphics platforms. The Intel part uses dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 with no recorded bandwidth, indicating a more conventional setup that trades bandwidth for flexibility in memory type support. ECC support is present on the AMD part and absent on the Intel part, which matters for data integrity in professional workloads. The PCIe lane counts also differ: 16 lanes on the AMD part versus 8 lanes on the Intel part, affecting expandability for discrete GPUs or NVMe storage.

The socket and market segment further separate the two. The AMD part is in the mobile segment with an FP11 socket, while the Intel part is in the desktop segment with Socket 1700. Despite this, both have the same 5.00 GHz boost clock, and both have locked multipliers. The release dates differ, with the Intel part released on 2024-04-07 and the AMD part released on 2026-01-05, indicating that the AMD design is newer. The production status for both is listed as active, so both are currently available in the market, but the architectural choices reflect different design goals: AMD prioritizes memory bandwidth and cache capacity for integrated graphics and compute, while Intel prioritizes core count and platform compatibility for desktop systems.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and the Intel Core 7 150HL. The headToHeadBenchmarks field is empty, and the winsA and winsB counters are both zero. This means the only available benchmark data comes from the AMD part's individual PassMark tests, which can be interpreted against its nearest rivals to establish its performance level.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers a multithread score of 45231, which is the primary indicator of its throughput in parallel workloads. This score, combined with its average benchmark score of 90541, places it within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 654 (which scores 90717) and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (which scores 91199). The delta percentages show that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 trails the Xeon 654 by only 0.2% and the Ryzen 9 9955HX by only 0.7%, making it a near-peer to those high-end processors. Against the Intel Xeon w7-2575X, which scores 88172, the AMD part is ahead by 2.7%, and against the Intel Xeon 6736P, which scores 87864, it is ahead by 3.0%. These margins indicate that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits in the upper tier of the database's performance rankings.

In individual benchmark tests, the AMD part shows its strengths. The PassMark data compression score is 554760, which is the highest single score across all its tests, indicating exceptional performance in compression algorithms. The data encryption score is 27784, and the extended instructions score is 45666, both of which are strong for workloads that use specialized instruction sets. The floating point math score is 99548, and the integer math score is 152414, showing that the processor handles both numeric and integer-heavy tasks with high throughput. The find prime numbers score is 320, which is a relatively lower number but still reflects the processor's capability in this specific test. The physics score is 2887, and the random string sorting score is 59487, both of which are moderate to high. The single-thread score is 3927, which is consistent across both the passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread tests, confirming the processor's strong single-core performance.

Since the Intel Core 7 150HL has no benchmark scores, there are no exact numbers to compare against the AMD part. The only recorded data point for the Intel part is its percentileVsAllCpus of 50, which indicates a median position among all CPUs, but this is not a score and cannot be used to quantify a head-to-head margin. The database's lack of measurements for the Intel part means that any direct comparison would be speculative, so the analysis must rely on the architectural specifications and the AMD part's recorded performance against its rivals. The data shows that the AMD part is a top-4 percentile performer, while the Intel part's 50th percentile ranking, without scores, suggests it would be significantly behind in any measurable test, but that conclusion is inferred from the percentile field, not from direct data.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90541, which places it at the 96th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 150HL have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No, the Intel Core 7 150HL has no recorded benchmark scores. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentileVsAllCpus is 50.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 654?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 90541, while the Intel Xeon 654 scores 90717. The delta percentage is -0.2%, meaning the AMD part is 0.2% behind the Xeon 654.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, using quad-channel LPDDR5X memory.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel Core 7 150HL has a TDP of 45 W.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 150HL is built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but it also reveals a fundamental data gap. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the only one of the two with measured benchmark results, and those results place it at the 96th percentile among all CPUs. Its average benchmark score of 90541 is within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 654 and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, making it a high-end processor by any standard. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, are specifications that support heavy compute workloads, including data compression, encryption, and floating-point math, as evidenced by its PassMark scores of 554760, 27784, and 99548, respectively.

The Intel Core 7 150HL, with no benchmark scores, cannot be selected based on measured performance. Its 14 cores and 20 threads, 24 MB of L3 cache, and dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory support are conventional desktop specifications, but the absence of data means the database provides no evidence of its actual capability. Its 50th percentile ranking, which is derived from no direct measurements, suggests it is an average performer, but that is an inference from the percentile field, not a verified result.

From the recorded data, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the only defensible choice for any workload where performance matters, because it has concrete scores that demonstrate its strength. The Intel Core 7 150HL is a processor that exists in the database with specifications but no measured outcomes, so any selection of it would be based on unverified assumptions. The verdict is straightforward: if the data is the sole basis for a decision, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every category because it is the only part with benchmark results. The Intel Core 7 150HL offers a lower TDP of 45 W and a desktop socket, but without scores, it cannot be recommended over a processor that is measurably in the top 4% of all CPUs.