AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and the Intel Processor 300 at opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a 12-core, 24-thread mobile processor with a 96th percentile ranking among all CPUs, an average benchmark score of 90,541, and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Intel Processor 300 is a 2-core, 4-thread desktop part with a 50th percentile ranking, no recorded average benchmark score, and no boost clock listed. The choice between them is not a matter of preference but of workload scale. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 should be selected for multi-threaded, high-throughput tasks, while the Intel Processor 300 only makes sense for basic, single-thread-light desktop duties where its lower 46 W TDP and desktop socket fit the bill. The data shows no scenario where the Intel part competes on raw compute output.

FAQ

Q: How large is the core count difference between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. That is a 10-core and 20-thread advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz, which is higher than the AMD base, but it has no boost clock recorded in the database.

Q: Do these processors use the same memory type?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, and no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor 300 does not.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11, a mobile socket. The Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700, a desktop socket.

Q: Does the Intel Processor 300 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No. The database shows an empty benchmark array for the Intel Processor 300, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 11 recorded benchmark entries and a 96th percentile ranking.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, code-named Strix Halo, and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max generation. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, with a die size listed as 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, and is built on a 10 nm process by Intel with a single 163 mm² die.

Cache organization differs considerably. Both processors share the same per-core L1 cache of 80 KB, but the AMD part has 1 MB of L2 per core, while the Intel part has 1.25 MB per core. The shared L3 cache is where the gap becomes extreme: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3, while the Intel Processor 300 has only 6 MB. This 58 MB difference in shared cache directly impacts working-set retention and multi-threaded scaling.

The memory architecture also reflects different design goals. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and a recorded bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, plus ECC support. The Intel part uses DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded and no ECC support. The PCIe implementation also diverges: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well, with the AMD part featuring a Radeon 8060S and the Intel part featuring UHD Graphics 710.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show a clear split across nearly every field. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, a 3.20 GHz base clock, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, a 55 W TDP, and uses AMD Socket FP11. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads, a 3.90 GHz base clock, no boost clock, a 46 W TDP, and uses Intel Socket 1700.

The process nodes differ: 4 nm for AMD versus 10 nm for Intel. The die sizes are recorded as 2x 70.6 mm² for AMD and 163 mm² for Intel. Cache details show the AMD part with 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3; the Intel part with 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

Memory support separates them further. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC. The Intel part uses DDR4 and DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure and no ECC. PCIe lanes are Gen 4 for AMD and Gen 5 for Intel, both at 16 lanes CPU only. The integrated graphics are Radeon 8060S for AMD and UHD Graphics 710 for Intel. Market segments differ: AMD is mobile, Intel is desktop. Release dates differ: AMD is dated 2026-01-05, Intel is dated 2024-01-07. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $82, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark entries are absent from the database, so the comparison must rely on the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392's recorded benchmark suite and its nearest rival data. The Intel Processor 300 has no benchmark scores, no average score, and no nearest rivals, which leaves no quantitative baseline for a side-by-side ratio. The recorded data for the AMD part, however, provides a detailed picture of its compute profile.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 in PassMark multithread, 3,927 in single-thread, and 3927 in the alternate single-thread test (the database records both spellings with identical scores). In integer math it reaches 152,414, and in floating-point math 99,548. Extended instructions score 45,666, data encryption 27,784, and data compression 554,760. Physics score is 2,887, find prime numbers is 320, and random string sorting is 59,487. The average benchmark score is 90,541, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals in the database put this performance in context. The Intel Xeon 654 has an average score of 90,717, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD part. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX averages 91,199, 0.7% higher. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X averages 88,172, which is 2.7% lower than the AMD part. The Intel Xeon 6736P averages 87,864, 3% lower. These deltas show that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits just below the top of its immediate peer group, trailing the Xeon 654 and Ryzen 9 9955HX by fractions of a percent while leading the two Xeon workstation parts by roughly 3%.

Because the Intel Processor 300 has no recorded scores, no direct percentage comparison is possible. The gap in percentile ranking (96 versus 50) and the absence of any benchmark entries for the Intel part are the only quantitative signals available. The data does not support any claim of parity.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in every workload category that has recorded data. Its 12 cores and 24 threads drive the multithread score of 45,231, and its 64 MB shared L3 cache supports the 554,760 data compression score and the 152,414 integer math result. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and quad-channel LPDDR5X support feed the 99,548 floating-point math score and the 45,666 extended instructions score. The 96th percentile ranking reflects broad dominance across the full benchmark suite. For any task that scales with cores, cache, or memory bandwidth, the data points exclusively to the AMD part.

The Intel Processor 300 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its only advantages in the specification fields are a higher base clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.20 GHz), a lower TDP (46 W versus 55 W), DDR4/DDR5 compatibility, Gen 5 PCIe, a desktop socket, an earlier release date, and a recorded launch MSRP of $82. These are platform-level characteristics, not performance results. The higher base clock may help lightly threaded tasks that do not boost, but without benchmark data, that remains speculative. The lower TDP and desktop socket make it a fit for simple, low-power desktop builds, while the AMD part targets mobile, high-performance computing. The database records no workload where the Intel Processor 300 outperforms the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392.