AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database does not contain a direct head-to-head benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and the Intel Core 7 160HL. The recorded measurements for the AMD part are extensive, covering eleven distinct PassMark workloads, while the Intel processor has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This absence of comparative data makes a direct numerical walkthrough of wins impossible. However, the AMD processor's individual benchmark results and its position relative to other CPUs in the database provide a clear picture of its capabilities.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers a PassMark single-thread score of 3927, a figure that places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs tracked. Its multithreaded score of 45231 is substantial, and the processor shows particular strength in data compression, scoring 554760. Integer math performance is recorded at 152414, while floating-point math reaches 99548. Extended instruction workloads produce a score of 45666, and random string sorting completes at 59487. The physics workload returns 2887, data encryption scores 27784, and prime number generation scores 320.

The average benchmark score across all recorded workloads for the AMD part is 90541. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon 654 with an average score of 90717, a delta of -0.2 percent, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX with an average score of 91199, a delta of -0.7 percent. Both of these parts are slightly ahead. Conversely, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits ahead of the Intel Xeon w7-2575X, which averages 88172, by 2.7 percent, and ahead of the Intel Xeon 6736P, which averages 87864, by 3 percent. These deltas indicate that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 operates in a performance tier comparable to workstation-class Xeon processors, despite being a mobile-class part.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge fundamentally in architecture. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The AMD part integrates twelve cores and twenty-four threads, while the Intel part has fourteen cores and twenty threads. Core counts differ, but thread counts are closer due to Intel's hybrid design.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. Both processors have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core for the AMD part, but the Intel part has 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 64 MB on the AMD processor, versus 24 MB on the Intel processor. This threefold difference in shared cache is notable.

Memory support presents another clear split. The AMD processor uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. It supports ECC memory. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics are distinct as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 carries a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The AMD part sits in the mobile market segment, while the Intel part is a desktop segment processor. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, and the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. The Intel part has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for AMD, but the AMD base clock is higher at 3.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. The AMD TDP is 55, and the Intel TDP is 45. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90541. It trails the Intel Xeon 654 by 0.2 percent and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX by 0.7 percent. It leads the Intel Xeon w7-2575X by 2.7 percent and the Intel Xeon 6736P by 3 percent.

Q: What is the single-thread performance of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392?

A: The recorded PassMark single-thread score is 3927, which is also listed as the singlethread score. This performance places the processor in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 160HL have any recorded benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The benchmark array for the Intel Core 7 160HL is empty, and its average benchmark score is recorded as 0. Its percentile versus all CPUs is 50.

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 of bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support.

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 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 160HL is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors with different intended roles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a mobile processor with a 96th percentile ranking, a strong average benchmark score of 90541, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. Its nearest rivals are workstation and high-end mobile parts, and it sits within 1 percent of the top two. The Intel Core 7 160HL has no recorded benchmark scores, so its performance cannot be quantified from the database. It has more cores but fewer threads, a smaller shared L3 cache, and a dual-channel memory bus with no ECC support. The AMD part also provides double the PCIe lanes and a higher memory bandwidth figure.

For users selecting based on recorded data, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the only part with measurable performance evidence. Its single-thread score of 3927 and multithread score of 45231 indicate strong general-purpose capability. The Intel processor's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz does not translate into recorded benchmark results. The AMD processor's integrated Radeon 8060S graphics and ECC memory support add features the Intel part lacks. The Intel part does offer a lower TDP of 45 versus 55 and a desktop segment classification. The database contains no wins for either processor in a direct head-to-head, as no such measurements exist. Based strictly on available data, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the processor with demonstrated performance, while the Intel Core 7 160HL remains unmeasured.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and the Intel Core 7 160HL:

• Cores: 12 versus 14
• Threads: 24 versus 20
• Base Clock: 3.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.00 GHz versus 5.20 GHz
• TDP: 55 versus 45
• Socket: AMD Socket FP11 versus Intel Socket 1700
• Architecture: Zen 5 versus Raptor Lake
• Codename: Strix Halo versus Raptor Lake-PS
• Generation: Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo)) versus Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS)
• Process Node: 4 nm versus 10 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Die Size: 2x 70.6 mm² versus not recorded
• L2 Cache: 1 MB (per core) versus 2 MB (per core)
• L3 Cache: 64 MB (shared) versus 24 MB (shared)
• Memory Support: LPDDR5X versus DDR4, DDR5
• Memory Bus: Quad-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus not recorded
• ECC Memory: true versus false
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 8060S versus Iris Xe Graphics 96EU
• Market Segment: Mobile versus Desktop
• Release Date: 2026-01-05 versus 2024-04-07
• Part Number: 100-000001979 versus unknown