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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and Intel Core 7 160UL occupy different tiers in the database, with the AMD part sitting at the 96th percentile of all CPUs and the Intel part at the 69th. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers an average benchmark score of 90,541, while the Core 7 160UL records 14,232. Across 11 head-to-head PassMark tests, the AMD processor wins every single comparison, with margins ranging from 15.8% in single-threaded work to 683% in extended instruction tests. The data indicates a decisive performance gap that stems from fundamental architectural and specification differences.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160UL has 10 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the cache difference between the two?

A: The AMD part has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel part has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core, but the Intel processor has 1.25 MB of L2 per core compared to 1 MB per core on the AMD side.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus, while the Intel Core 7 160UL supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 160UL boosts to 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 5.00 GHz boost clock. The AMD part has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 1.80 GHz.

Q: How do the two compare in multithreaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 in PassMark multithread, which is 309.6% ahead of the Intel Core 7 160UL's 11,043.

Q: What is the single-thread score difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3,927 in PassMark single-thread, which is 15.8% ahead of the Intel Core 7 160UL's 3,391.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different manufacturing processes and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 7 160UL uses a 10 nm process at Intel. This process gap contributes to significant differences in power efficiency and transistor density.

The AMD part is built on the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, while the Intel chip uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-PS codename. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 belongs to the Ryzen AI Max generation, whereas the Core 7 160UL is part of the Core 7 generation.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The AMD processor carries 64 MB of shared L3 cache, which is substantially larger than the Intel part's 12 MB of shared L3. Both use 80 KB of L1 per core. The Intel processor has 1.25 MB of L2 per core, slightly more than the AMD part's 1 MB per core. The die size for the AMD processor is reported as 2x 70.6 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Intel chip.

Memory architecture diverges as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160UL uses DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, and it does not support ECC memory. The AMD processor also provides more PCIe connectivity with Gen 4 and 16 lanes (CPU only), compared to Gen 4 and 8 lanes (CPU only) on the Intel part.

Integrated graphics differ: the AMD processor pairs with a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel chip uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel chip uses Intel Socket 1700. Production status is Active for both, with the AMD part released on 2026-01-05 and the Intel part on 2024-04-07.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, with 11 wins and 0 losses against the Intel Core 7 160UL. No benchmark category favors the Intel processor in this comparison.

The AMD part dominates heavily in compute-intensive workloads. In extended instructions, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,666 versus 5,832, a 683% lead that indicates a massive advantage in workloads using specialized instruction sets. Prime number finding shows a 540% gap, with 320 versus 50. Data compression delivers a 409.2% lead at 554,760 versus 108,953. Random string sorting goes 402.3% in favor of the AMD chip at 59,487 versus 11,843.

Multithreaded throughput is also a clear strength for the AMD processor. The 45231 score in PassMark multithread is 309.6% higher than the Intel chip's 11,043. Integer math shows 152,414 versus 47,515 for a 220.8% advantage. Floating point math records 99,548 versus 25,670, a 287.8% gap. Data encryption results in 27,784 versus 7,146, a 288.8% lead. Physics processing shows 2,887 versus 819, a 252.5% margin.

The narrowest gap appears in single-thread performance, where the AMD processor leads by only 15.8%, scoring 3,927 versus 3,391. This remains a win for the AMD part, but the margin suggests the Intel chip is closer in lightly threaded scenarios.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and Intel Core 7 160UL differ across nearly every major specification field.

• Cores: 12 (AMD) vs 10 (Intel)
• Threads: 24 (AMD) vs 12 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 3.20 GHz (AMD) vs 1.80 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 5.00 GHz (AMD) vs 5.20 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 55 (AMD) vs 15 (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket FP11 vs Intel Socket 1700
• Architecture: Zen 5 vs Raptor Lake
• Codename: Strix Halo vs Raptor Lake-PS
• Generation: Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo)) vs Core 7 (Raptor Lake-PS)
• Process Node: 4 nm vs 10 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs Intel
• Die Size: 2x 70.6 mm² vs not recorded
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs 1.25 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 64 MB shared vs 12 MB shared
• Memory Support: LPDDR5X vs DDR4, DDR5
• Memory Bus: Quad-channel vs Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s vs not recorded
• ECC Memory: true vs false
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 4, 8 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 8060S vs Iris Xe Graphics 96EU
• Market Segment: Mobile vs Desktop
• Release Date: 2026-01-05 vs 2024-04-07
• Multiplier Unlocked: false for both
• Part Number: 100-000001979 vs unknown

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the entire comparison belongs to extended instructions. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,666, which is 683% higher than the Intel Core 7 160UL's 5,832. This suggests the AMD processor handles specialized instruction workloads with far greater efficiency.

Prime number finding shows the next biggest gap at 540%. The AMD chip records 320, while the Intel chip records 50. This workload is highly sensitive to both core count and architecture efficiency, and the Zen 5 design clearly excels.

Data compression favors the AMD processor by 409.2%. The score of 554,760 dwarfs the Intel part's 108,953. Random string sorting follows closely with a 402.3% margin, at 59,487 versus 11,843. These results point to strong memory subsystem performance on the AMD side, aided by the larger L3 cache and quad-channel memory bus.

Multithreaded performance shows a 309.6% gap, with the AMD part scoring 45,231 versus 11,043. This aligns with the core and thread count difference, where the AMD chip provides double the threads. Data encryption delivers a 288.8% lead at 27,784 versus 7,146. Floating point math records 99,548 versus 25,670, a 287.8% advantage. Physics processing shows 2,887 versus 819, a 252.5% gap. Integer math delivers 152,414 versus 47,515, a 220.8% lead.

The smallest difference is in single-thread performance, but the AMD processor still wins by 15.8%. The scores of 3,927 versus 3,391 show that the Intel Core 7 160UL's higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz cannot fully offset the architectural efficiency of the Zen 5 design. This is the only benchmark where the Intel part comes within striking distance.

The database records 11 wins for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and 0 wins for the Intel Core 7 160UL. The average benchmark scores reflect the same hierarchy, with the AMD part at 90,541 and the Intel part at 14,232. The AMD processor sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 69th percentile. Nearest rivals for the AMD part include the Intel Xeon 654 at 90,717, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at 91,199, the Intel Xeon w7-2575X at 88,172, and the Intel Xeon 6736P at 87,864. The Intel Core 7 160UL's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14,277, the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14,185, the Intel Xeon 6756E at 14,163, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3501U at 14,320.