AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 265K Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors along clear lines. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins only one of the eleven head-to-head tests: integer math. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K wins the other ten, covering everything from single-thread performance to multithreaded workloads, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math.

The Intel part's dominance is most pronounced in floating-point math, where it scores 189629 against AMD's 99548, a 47.5% advantage. This is a decisive gap for workloads that rely heavily on floating-point calculations, such as scientific simulations, physics engines, and certain rendering tasks. The Core Ultra 7 265K also leads in data encryption by a wide margin, scoring 48246 versus 27784, a 42.4% difference. This suggests a meaningful advantage for security-related workloads that involve cryptographic operations.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392's single win in integer math is narrow. It scores 152414 against Intel's 143242, a 6.4% edge. This indicates that for general integer-heavy computation, such as database operations or software compilation, the AMD part holds a modest but real lead. However, this one win is outweighed by Intel's broad superiority across the other ten tests.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split. The AMD part has an average benchmark score of 90541, while the Intel part sits at 70879. The AMD processor's higher average is influenced by its position among nearest rivals, which include the Intel Xeon 654 at 90717 and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at 91199. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K's average places it near the Intel Xeon 6511P at 71051 and the Intel Core i7-14700KF at 70163. The Intel part's percentile ranking is 94, slightly below AMD's 96, but the head-to-head test results tell a different story, with Intel winning ten of eleven specific workload comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a mobile processor built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, using a 4 nm process from TSMC. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is a desktop processor based on the Arrow Lake architecture, using a 3 nm process from TSMC. It has 20 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz.

The core counts and threading differ significantly. The AMD part offers simultaneous multithreading, giving 24 threads from 12 cores. The Intel part has more physical cores but no hyperthreading, so it has 20 threads from 20 cores. This impacts how the two processors handle multithreaded workloads. The Intel part's higher core count contributes to its multithread benchmark lead, despite the AMD part's thread advantage per core.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The AMD processor has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 30 MB) is a notable difference, though the Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches may benefit single-threaded and per-core performance.

Memory support and bandwidth are major differentiators. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, providing 102.4 GB/s. The AMD processor's memory bandwidth is two and a half times higher, which is particularly relevant for integrated graphics performance and memory-intensive workloads. Both processors support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part offers both a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which can matter for high-throughput expansion cards or storage devices.

The integrated graphics are distinct. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD part's higher memory bandwidth and larger L3 cache are likely to benefit its integrated graphics, though the benchmark data does not include specific graphics tests.

The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The Intel processor also has a significantly higher TDP at 125 W versus the AMD part's 55 W, indicating a larger thermal envelope for sustained performance. The Intel part's process node is smaller (3 nm versus 4 nm), but its die size is larger at 243 mm² against the AMD part's 2x 70.6 mm², and it has 17,800 million transistors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent pattern. In passmark data compression, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 665554 against the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 554760, a 16.6% lead. This is a substantial advantage for workloads that involve file compression, archiving, or data transfer.

Data encryption shows an even larger gap. The Intel part scores 48246 versus 27784, a 42.4% difference. This suggests that the Intel processor is significantly more efficient at cryptographic operations, which is relevant for VPNs, secure communications, and disk encryption.

Floating-point math is the most lopsided test. The Intel part scores 189629 against 99548, a 47.5% lead. This is the largest delta in the dataset. Integer math is the only test the AMD part wins, scoring 152414 versus 143242, a 6.4% edge.

Multithread performance favors the Intel part. It scores 58594 against 45231, a 22.8% lead. This is consistent with the Intel part's higher core count and higher TDP. The physics test shows a similar pattern, with the Intel part scoring 3731 against 2887, a 22.6% advantage.

Single-thread performance also goes to Intel. The Core Ultra 7 265K scores 4928 against 3927, a 20.3% lead. This is notable because the AMD part has a higher boost clock relative to its base clock, but the Intel part's higher absolute boost clock of 5.50 GHz likely contributes to its single-thread edge.

Extended instructions favor Intel, with scores of 54333 versus 45666, a 16% lead. Random string sorting also goes to Intel, with 79752 versus 59487, a 25.4% advantage. The find prime numbers test shows Intel leading with 491 versus 320, a 34.8% difference.

In the Cinebench tests, which are only recorded for the Intel part, the Core Ultra 7 265K scores 35850 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 2020 in single-core. It also scores 20918 in Cinebench R20 multicore and 2953 in single-core, and 5020 in Cinebench R15 multicore with 708 in single-core. Geekbench results show 23085 multicore and 2713 single-core. These scores provide additional context for the Intel part's performance, though no direct AMD comparison is available in the database.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 4928 in passmark single-thread, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3927. The Intel part leads by 20.3%.

Q: How does multithread performance compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K scores 58594 in passmark multithread, versus 45231 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392. The Intel part is 22.8% ahead.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 265K has 20 cores and 20 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 provides 256.0 GB/s with quad-channel LPDDR5X, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K provides 102.4 GB/s with dual-channel DDR5.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K uses a 3 nm process from TSMC.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the stronger performer in the majority of tested workloads. It wins ten of the eleven head-to-head tests, with particularly large margins in floating-point math (47.5% ahead), data encryption (42.4% ahead), and find prime numbers (34.8% ahead). The Intel part's higher core count, higher boost clock, and larger TDP contribute to its broad lead. Its single-thread advantage of 20.3% is also significant for everyday responsiveness.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a clear niche. Its single win in integer math (6.4% ahead) shows that it can handle integer-heavy computation well. Its memory bandwidth is more than double that of the Intel part (256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s), which is a substantial advantage for memory-bound tasks and for its integrated Radeon 8060S graphics. The AMD part's lower TDP of 55 W versus 125 W indicates it is designed for a mobile form factor, where power efficiency matters more than raw performance.

For users prioritizing peak CPU performance across a wide range of tasks, including floating-point, encryption, and multithreaded workloads, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K is the better choice based on the recorded data. For those who need a mobile processor with high memory bandwidth and a modest power envelope, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 offers specific advantages, particularly in integer math and memory throughput. The Intel part's higher average benchmark score among its nearest rivals (70879, near the Intel Xeon 6511P at 71051) and its percentile ranking of 94, while lower than AMD's 96, do not offset its dominant head-to-head record.