AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core i5-14400 Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the clear performance leader in every recorded benchmark category, winning all 11 head-to-head tests against the Intel Core i5-14400. The database places the AMD part at the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits at the 82nd percentile. For workloads that demand heavy multi-threaded throughput, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers roughly 80% higher PassMark multithread scores. The Intel Core i5-14400 remains relevant for desktop builders who need a solid mainstream processor, but the recorded data shows it trailing by significant margins across the board.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the pick for users who prioritize raw compute, extended instruction performance, and memory bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-14400 is the pick for those who need a conventional desktop socket, dual-channel memory flexibility, and PCIe Gen 5 support, though benchmark results show it cannot match the AMD part in any measured workload.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The chip is a mobile segment part on the AMD Socket FP11 platform, with a thermal design power of 55 watts. Its cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The die is composed of two 70.6 mm² slices.

The Intel Core i5-14400 belongs to the Core 14th Gen series, using the Raptor Lake architecture under the Raptor Lake-R codename. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with 10 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 2.50 GHz, boost clock is 4.70 GHz, and TDP is 65 watts. It uses Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market. The cache configuration offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. The die measures 215 mm².

Memory support differs sharply. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no recorded bandwidth figure. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Integrated graphics are the Radeon 8060S on the AMD side and UHD Graphics 730 on the Intel side.

The AMD part was released in January 2026, while the Intel part launched in January 2024. The Intel Core i5-14400 has a launch MSRP of $221. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it scores 320 against 80 for the Intel chip, a 300% advantage. That result indicates a massive lead in integer-heavy algorithmic work.

Extended instructions favor AMD heavily: 45,666 versus 19,816, a 130.5% delta. Physics simulation shows a 106.8% advantage, with scores of 2,887 and 1,396. Integer math delivers 152,414 against 82,017, an 85.8% lead. Random string sorting shows 59,487 versus 32,346, a 83.9% delta. Multi-thread performance, a key aggregate metric, gives AMD 45,231 against Intel's 25,080, an 80.3% advantage.

Data compression scores 554,760 for AMD versus 314,995 for Intel, a 76.1% lead. Data encryption shows 27,784 against 16,731, a 66.1% delta. Floating point math reaches 99,548 for AMD against 61,549 for Intel, a 61.7% advantage. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance: 3,927 versus 3,741, a 5% lead for AMD. The database records the same single-thread result twice under slightly different test names, with the same 5% delta in both cases.

The Intel Core i5-14400 has no wins in any head-to-head category. Its strongest relative performance is in single-threaded work, where it trails by only 5%, but it still loses that test. The AMD part builds its lead in multi-threaded, instruction-heavy, and memory-sensitive workloads, where the deltas range from 61.7% to 300%.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins all 11 recorded head-to-head tests. The Intel Core i5-14400 wins none.

Q: How large is the multi-thread performance gap?

A: In the PassMark multithread test, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 against 25,080 for the Intel Core i5-14400, a 80.3% advantage.

Q: Is the AMD part faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes, but only slightly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3,927 against 3,741 for the Intel Core i5-14400, a 5% lead.

Q: What memory configurations do the two CPUs support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i5-14400 supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and the Intel Core i5-14400 have ECC memory support.

Q: How do the overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90,541 and sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core i5-14400 has an average score of 32,115 and sits at the 82nd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every recorded benchmark category, so any performance-oriented use case falls to it. The data shows particular strength in extended instructions, where it beats the Intel chip by 130.5%, and in prime number finding, where it leads by 300%. Those results point to compute-heavy scientific, cryptographic, or simulation workloads. The 85.8% lead in integer math and the 61.7% lead in floating point math reinforce that profile. The 106.8% advantage in physics simulation suggests strong performance for physics-based rendering or engineering simulation tasks. Data compression and encryption also favor AMD by 76.1% and 66.1% respectively, making the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 the better choice for archiving, database workloads, or secure communication processing.

The AMD part also benefits from a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz, a larger shared L3 cache at 64 MB versus 20 MB, and quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a recorded 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 24 threads against 16 threads give it a scheduling advantage in heavily parallel workloads. Its 55 watt TDP is lower than the Intel chip's 65 watt TDP, which is notable for a mobile part that delivers this level of performance.

The Intel Core i5-14400 does not win any benchmark category, so its case rests on platform characteristics rather than measured performance. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 desktop platform, which is a conventional choice for desktop builders. Its dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5 offers flexibility in memory selection, and the PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 CPU lanes provides newer I/O connectivity than the AMD part's Gen 4 interface. The Intel chip also has a larger per-core L2 cache at 1.25 MB per core versus 1 MB per core, which may help in some latency-sensitive scenarios, though the recorded benchmarks do not show a win in any measured test. The Intel part's 10 nm process and 215 mm² die size indicate a more traditional monolithic design, while the AMD part uses a 4 nm process with a dual-die layout.

For system builders who want maximum measured performance in every workload, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the clear choice. For builders who prioritize desktop socket compatibility, DDR4 or DDR5 memory flexibility, and PCIe Gen 5 lanes, the Intel Core i5-14400 offers those platform attributes, but the benchmark data shows it cannot match the AMD part's compute output.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 | Intel Core i5-14400 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 10 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-R |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 215 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

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

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8060S | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2026-01-05 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $221 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel Core i5-14400 uses a 10 nm Intel process. The AMD chip has 12 cores and 24 threads, two more cores and eight more threads than the Intel part. Base and boost clocks are higher on the AMD side. The AMD part has a smaller TDP at 55 watts versus 65 watts. Cache differs: the AMD chip has 1 MB L2 per core and 64 MB shared L3, while the Intel chip has 1.25 MB L2 per core and 20 MB shared L3. Memory support, bus width, bandwidth, PCIe generation, integrated graphics, socket, market segment, and release dates all differ between the two parts.