AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 336H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 records an average benchmark score of 90,541, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H records 34,485. The AMD part sits at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 84th percentile for the Intel part.

Q: How large is the multithreaded performance gap?

A: In the PassMark multithread test, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 against 28,545 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, a difference of 58.5% in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4,013 versus 3,927 for the AMD part, a 2.1% advantage. The same result appears in the duplicated single-thread entry.

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 Ultra 5 336H has 16 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports a larger memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H has a TDP of 25 watts.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins 9 of the 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including every multithreaded workload in the database. Its average benchmark score of 90,541 places it near the top of the overall CPU distribution at the 96th percentile. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, with an average score of 34,485 and an 84th percentile ranking, is the slower part in nearly all measured categories.

The AMD processor is the choice for workloads dominated by integer math, compression, encryption, and extended instruction sets. Its lead in PassMark integer math is particularly large: 152,414 versus 62,070, a 145.6% advantage. In data compression, the AMD part scores 554,760 against 280,340, a 97.9% gap. Those two results alone indicate a processor that handles heavy compute and data transformation tasks with far greater throughput.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H holds one meaningful advantage: single-thread performance. Its score of 4,013 beats the AMD part's 3,927 by 2.1%. For applications that rely heavily on lightly threaded responsiveness, the Intel part has a slight edge, but the margin is small compared to the AMD part's multithreaded dominance.

The choice depends on workload profile. For multithreaded rendering, compilation, data processing, or any task that scales across cores and threads, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the superior option by a wide margin. For single-threaded tasks where the application cannot use more than one core effectively, the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H offers a modest advantage, though the overall score differential remains heavily in AMD's favor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 appears in PassMark integer math. The AMD part scores 152,414 against 62,070 for the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, a 145.6% advantage. This is the single biggest percentage gap in the comparison.

Data compression follows closely. AMD scores 554,760, Intel scores 280,340, a 97.9% difference. Random string sorting shows a 72.9% advantage for AMD, with scores of 59,487 and 34,402. Extended instructions favor AMD by 86.1%, with scores of 45,666 and 24,542.

Multithreaded performance, measured by PassMark multithread, gives AMD a 58.5% lead: 45,231 versus 28,545. Floating-point math favors AMD by 20.8%, with scores of 99,548 and 82,415. Data encryption shows a 30.5% advantage for AMD, 27,784 versus 21,291. Physics simulation is closer, AMD wins 2,887 to 2,682, a 7.6% margin. Find prime numbers is the narrowest AMD win at 7%, with scores of 320 and 299.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H takes the single-thread test by 2.1%, scoring 4,013 against 3,927. The same result appears in the duplicate single-thread entry. No other benchmark in the head-to-head set favors Intel.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. AMD's 90,541 average is roughly 2.6 times the Intel part's 34,485. The AMD part's nearest rivals, the Intel Xeon 654 at 90,717 and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at 91,199, are within 0.2% and 0.7% respectively, showing that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits in a performance tier populated by high-end workstation and HX-series parts. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H, by contrast, is bracketed by the Intel Core i7-13700HX at 34,554 and the Intel Core i5-13450HX at 34,333, with deltas of 0.2% and 0.4%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. 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 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz.

TDP differs substantially: 55 watts for AMD, 25 watts for Intel. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 2540. The process node also differs: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry.

Cache layouts are distinct. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3.

Memory support differs as well. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth and does not support ECC.

PCIe connectivity differs: the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics are different: AMD uses Radeon 8060S, Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has a part number of 100-000001979, and the Intel part has a part number of SA4RD. The AMD part was released on 2026-01-05, and the Intel part was released on 2026-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is built on the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, part of the Ryzen AI Max generation. The Intel Core Ultra 5 336H uses the Panther Lake architecture, part of the Core Ultra Series 3 and the Panther Lake-H generation.

The process nodes reflect different foundry strategies. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD die is composed of two 70.6 mm² chiplets, while the database lists no die size for the Intel part.

Core architecture differs in cache design and thread handling. AMD provides 24 threads from 12 cores, relying on simultaneous multithreading. Intel provides 16 threads from 16 cores, with no thread doubling. The per-core cache amounts differ significantly: Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 and 2.5 MB of L2 per core, while AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. AMD compensates with a much larger shared L3 pool of 64 MB, versus 18 MB for Intel.

Memory architecture reinforces the AMD part's bandwidth advantage. The quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration delivers 256.0 GB/s, more than double the 115.2 GB/s of Intel's dual-channel setup. ECC support is present on the AMD part and absent on the Intel part.

PCIe generation differs. Intel supports Gen 5 with 12 lanes, while AMD supports Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The Intel part therefore offers a newer PCIe standard but fewer lanes.

The integrated graphics solutions are different generations and families. AMD pairs the CPU with Radeon 8060S, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics. The recorded benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so no direct comparison of iGPU performance is available from the database.

Both processors target the mobile segment and are in active production. The AMD part carries a higher TDP of 55 watts, consistent with its larger L3 cache and quad-channel memory controller. The Intel part's 25 watt TDP aligns with a lower base clock and a smaller shared cache.