AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is clear and decisive. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins 8 of the 11 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 takes only 3. That distribution alone frames the analysis: the Intel part dominates broad workload coverage, while the AMD part holds specific niches.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in data compression, extended instructions, and integer math. Its data compression score of 554,760 edges out the Intel result of 553,155 by a slim 0.3%, a near-tie that favors the AMD part by the smallest measurable margin. The extended instructions victory is more substantial, with 45,666 against 42,880 for a 6.5% lead. The largest AMD advantage comes in integer math, where the 152,414 score tops the Intel 123,030 by 23.9%, a commanding margin that indicates strong per-thread integer throughput.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus wins everything else. The biggest Intel margin appears in floating point math, where 159,824 beats 99,548 by 37.7%, an enormous gap that dwarfs any AMD advantage elsewhere in the suite. Data encryption goes Intel's way by 32.7%, with 41,292 against 27,784. Prime number finding favors Intel by 29.2%, single-thread performance by 16.4%, random string sorting by 11.5%, multithread by 9.8%, and physics by 9.3%.

The pattern is consistent. AMD wins where integer operations and specialized instruction extensions matter most, plus a marginal compression win. Intel wins everywhere else, often by large margins. The multithread result is notable: despite the AMD part having 24 threads against 18 for Intel, the Intel chip still leads by 9.8%, indicating that its 18 physical cores deliver more aggregate throughput than the AMD's 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading.

Percentile placement reinforces the split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus sits at the 93rd percentile. The AMD part is the higher-ranked chip overall, yet the Intel part wins most direct comparisons, a nuance explained by the different benchmark compositions feeding each percentile score.

The Verdict

The data points to two different usage profiles. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus is the stronger general-purpose processor across the recorded benchmark suite, winning 8 of 11 tests with an average benchmark score of 66,159. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914, a 0.4% gap, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 66,855, which beats it by 1%. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a higher average benchmark score of 90,541, but that figure is inflated by its large wins in specific tests, particularly integer math.

For workloads that stress floating point, encryption, prime number generation, sorting, physics, or single-thread responsiveness, the Intel part is the clear choice. Its 37.7% lead in floating point math and 32.7% lead in encryption are decisive. For integer-heavy workloads, extended instruction sets, and data compression, the AMD part holds the advantage, with the 23.9% integer math lead being the largest single margin in the entire comparison.

The choice depends on workload composition. A system running mixed desktop tasks, content creation, or general productivity would favor the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, given its wins in single-thread, multithread, and floating point tests. A system dedicated to integer-heavy computation, specialized instruction extensions, or compression workloads would favor the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392. The AMD part also carries integrated graphics, the Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part has no integrated graphics, which matters for systems that cannot rely on a discrete GPU.

The Intel part is the safer default for most users. It wins more tests, wins by larger margins in the most common workloads, and its 18 cores provide a solid foundation for multithreaded tasks. The AMD part is the specialist, offering a smaller win count but a higher overall benchmark average thanks to its outsized integer performance. The 96th percentile ranking of the AMD part versus the 93rd percentile of the Intel part reflects that higher average, but percentile rank does not translate into winning the majority of direct comparisons here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest Intel victory is floating point math. The 159,824 score against 99,548 yields a 37.7% delta, the widest gap in the entire head-to-head set. This result indicates that the Intel architecture handles floating point workloads with substantially greater efficiency, a critical factor for scientific computing, 3D rendering, and simulation tasks.

Data encryption shows a 32.7% Intel advantage. The 41,292 result versus 27,784 places Intel firmly ahead in encryption workloads, which rely heavily on cryptographic instruction throughput. This margin is consistent with the Intel part's architectural strengths in specialized computation.

Prime number finding favors Intel by 29.2%, with 452 against 320. This test is often associated with single-thread integer performance, yet the Intel part wins decisively here even as the AMD part wins the broader integer math test. The distinction suggests that the AMD integer advantage is not universal across all integer workloads.

Single-thread performance goes to Intel by 16.4%, with 4,698 against 3,927. This is a substantial margin for a metric that often correlates with everyday responsiveness and lightly threaded applications. The Intel boost clock of 5.30 GHz against 5.00 GHz for AMD aligns with this result, though clock speed alone does not explain the full gap.

Multithread performance favors Intel by 9.8%, with 50,146 against 45,231. The Intel part achieves this with 18 threads against 24 for AMD, a notable efficiency gap. Physics follows at 9.3% in Intel's favor, and random string sorting at 11.5%.

The AMD victories are narrower except for integer math. The 23.9% integer math lead is substantial, with 152,414 against 123,030. Extended instructions show a 6.5% AMD advantage, 45,666 against 42,880. Data compression is nearly tied, 554,760 against 553,155, a 0.3% margin that represents the closest result in the entire comparison.

The overall benchmark averages tell a different story than the head-to-head wins. The AMD part averages 90,541, which places it among rivals like the Intel Xeon 654 at 90,717 and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at 91,199. The Intel part averages 66,159, near the Intel Core 9 273PQE at 66,099 and the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D at 65,914. The AMD average is 36.9% higher, yet the Intel part wins most individual tests, demonstrating that the AMD average is driven by a few very large scores rather than consistent wins across the suite.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 4,698 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 16.4% higher than the 3,927 scored by the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392.

Q: How do the two compare in multithread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 50,146 in the PassMark multithread test, beating the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 45,231 by 9.8%. The Intel part achieves this with 18 threads, while the AMD part has 24 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in floating point math, where the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus scores 159,824 against 99,548 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, a 37.7% difference.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90,541, compared to 66,159 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus. The AMD part also ranks at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel part ranks at the 93rd percentile.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins 3 of 11 head-to-head tests: data compression (554,760 vs 553,155, a 0.3% lead), extended instructions (45,666 vs 42,880, a 6.5% lead), and integer math (152,414 vs 123,030, a 23.9% lead).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count, while the Intel part does not.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with a Strix Halo codename and a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename on a 3 nm process, also from TSMC, with a die size of 243 mm² and 17,800 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel part allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, with only 30 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has more than double the L3 cache, which likely contributes to its strong integer math and extended instruction results. The Intel part has larger per-core L1 and L2 allocations, which may support its floating point and single-thread advantages.

The integrated graphics situation is a major differentiator. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 includes a Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has no integrated graphics at all. Systems built around the Intel part require a discrete GPU, while the AMD part can operate without one.

The Intel part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, while the AMD part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP11. The AMD part has a 55 W TDP against 125 W for the Intel part, a significant power envelope difference that reflects the mobile versus desktop positioning.

Memory architecture also differs. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part has more than double the memory bandwidth, which may contribute to its data compression and integer math performance.

The AMD part has a multiplier that is not unlocked, while the Intel part has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Intel part also supports Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes, while the AMD part supports Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading, the Intel part does not.

Clock speeds favor Intel. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz.

TDP differs by 70 W: the AMD part is rated at 55 W, the Intel part at 125 W. The process nodes differ by 1 nm, with AMD on 4 nm and Intel on 3 nm, both from TSMC.

Memory support differs in type and configuration. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe support differs by generation and lane count. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ completely: the AMD part includes a Radeon 8060S, the Intel part has none. The AMD part is a mobile processor, the Intel part is a desktop processor. The AMD part has a locked multiplier, the Intel part has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $184.