AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs Intel Processor N250 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Processor N250 uses 4 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part supports simultaneous multithreading, the Intel part does not.

Q: How do the cache hierarchies differ between the two parts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 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 N250 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3.

Q: What process nodes and foundries are used?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Processor N250 is built on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: What memory types and channel configurations are supported?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Processor N250 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus, delivering 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor N250 does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score and percentile ranking for each?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90541 and ranks in the 96th percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Processor N250 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database and ranks in the 50th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, while the Intel Processor N250 uses the Twin Lake architecture, which the database places in the Alder Lake-N generation family. These are fundamentally different designs: the AMD part is a 12-core, 24-thread processor with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part is a 4-core, 4-thread processor with a base clock of 0.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The base clock figures are particularly telling, as the Intel N250 runs at an extremely low nominal base frequency and relies on boost behavior for performance.

The manufacturing processes diverge sharply. AMD uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry. This process gap contributes to significant differences in power characteristics: the AMD part has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 6 watts. The AMD processor also uses a much larger die, listed at 2x 70.6 mm², whereas no die size is recorded for the Intel part.

Cache configurations reflect the different core counts and design philosophies. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, then adds 64 MB of shared L3. Intel allocates 96 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of shared L2, then adds 6 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference is substantial: AMD provides more than ten times the shared last-level cache.

Memory support also differs in both type and width. The AMD chip uses LPDDR5X over a quad-channel interface, achieving 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel interface, achieving 38.4 GB/s. The bandwidth differential is roughly 6.7 times in AMD's favor, which matters for memory-intensive workloads.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics also differ: AMD pairs the CPU with a Radeon 8060S, while Intel pairs the N250 with UHD Graphics 730. Socket compatibility is separate, with AMD using Socket FP11 and Intel using BGA 1264. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in every recorded benchmark category in the database. The Intel Processor N250 has no benchmark scores recorded, so all comparative wins belong to the AMD part across the board. The AMD chip's multithread score of 45231 indicates strong parallel throughput, supported by 24 threads and 64 MB of L3 cache.

The AMD part also wins decisively in single-thread performance, with a score of 3927. This metric matters for lightly threaded applications and general responsiveness, and the data shows the Zen 5 architecture delivers a strong per-core showing. The Intel N250 has no recorded single-thread score, so a direct comparison is not possible from the database.

Memory bandwidth represents another clear win for AMD. The quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth dwarfs the Intel part's single-channel 38.4 GB/s. Workloads that scale with memory bandwidth, such as data compression, encryption, and large dataset manipulation, will favor the AMD part heavily. The AMD chip's passmark data compression score of 554760 and data encryption score of 27784 confirm this advantage.

The Intel Processor N250 wins only in power efficiency on paper, with a 6 watt TDP versus 55 watts for the AMD part. The database does not record performance-per-watt benchmarks, but the raw TDP difference is significant. The Intel part also uses a smaller, simpler platform with a single-channel memory bus and Gen 3 PCIe, which points to low-power, low-complexity system designs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. Core count: 12 versus 4. Thread count: 24 versus 4. Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 0.10 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. TDP: 55 watts versus 6 watts. Socket: AMD Socket FP11 versus Intel BGA 1264.

Architecture and codename differ: Zen 5 with Strix Halo versus Twin Lake with Twin Lake. The generation field lists AMD as Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo)) and Intel as Intel Processor (Alder Lake-N). Process node: 4 nm at TSMC versus 10 nm at Intel. Die size is recorded only for AMD at 2x 70.6 mm².

Cache differs in structure: AMD uses 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Intel uses 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support: LPDDR5X versus DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5. Memory bus: quad-channel versus single-channel. Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC support: true versus false.

PCIe: Gen 4 with 16 lanes versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 8060S versus UHD Graphics 730. Release dates differ: the AMD part is dated 2026-01-05, the Intel part 2025-01-06. Part numbers: 100-000001979 versus SRPNS. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between these two processors, and the Intel Processor N250 has no individual benchmark scores recorded. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, however, has a full set of PassMark scores that establish its performance profile.

The AMD part's multithread score is 45231, which places it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. Its average benchmark score is 90541. The nearest rivals in the database provide context: the Intel Xeon 654 scores 90717 on average, which is 0.2% higher than the AMD part. The AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 91199, 0.7% higher. The Intel Xeon w7-2575X scores 88172, which is 2.7% lower, and the Intel Xeon 6736P scores 87864, 3.0% lower. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 therefore sits within a tight cluster of high-end workstation and server processors, just slightly below the top two rivals and slightly above the next two.

Individual workload scores for the AMD part are instructive. Integer math scores 152414, floating point math scores 99548, and extended instructions score 45666. Find prime numbers scores 320, physics scores 2887, and random string sorting scores 59487. Data compression scores 554760, data encryption scores 27784, and single-thread performance scores 3927. These numbers show a processor that handles both integer-heavy and floating-point-heavy workloads with high throughput.

The Intel Processor N250's lack of recorded benchmark scores means the database cannot quantify its performance relative to the AMD part. Its 50th percentile ranking, however, places it at the median of all CPUs, which is a far lower standing than the AMD part's 96th percentile. The absence of rival data for the Intel part also means no direct delta comparisons are available.

The Verdict

The data points to a complete performance separation between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 delivers a 96th percentile ranking, an average benchmark score of 90541, and a full suite of strong PassMark scores. The Intel Processor N250 sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded benchmark scores, making quantitative comparison impossible but qualitative ranking clear.

The AMD part is the choice for compute-heavy mobile workloads. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth position it for multithreaded applications, large data sets, and memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Its nearest rivals in the database, the Intel Xeon 654 and AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, score within 1% of its average, confirming that it competes in the high-end mobile and workstation class.

The Intel Processor N250 is the choice for minimal-power systems. Its 6 watt TDP, single-channel memory, and Gen 3 PCIe indicate a design focused on low energy draw and platform simplicity. The database records no performance scores for it, so claims about its speed must remain qualitative, but the 50th percentile ranking suggests mid-pack positioning among all CPUs.

System designers should select based on workload class. Heavy parallel processing, high memory throughput, and demanding integrated graphics point to the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392. Low-power, simple, lightweight systems point to the Intel Processor N250. The two parts do not compete in the same performance tier, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly.