AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395, which wins all 15 head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core 3 304. The most dramatic separation occurs in multi-threaded workloads, where the Ryzen's 16 cores and 32 threads overwhelm the Core 3's 5 cores and 5 threads.

Cinebench R23 multicore delivers the largest margin of the entire dataset: the AMD part scores 35,314 against 5,263 for Intel, a 571% advantage. The R15 multicore test tells a similar story, with 5,463 versus 849, a 543.5% gap. PassMark integer math shows the biggest proportional difference at 714.4%, with the Ryzen producing 200,665 versus 24,640.

The Ryzen also dominates in memory-sensitive and encryption workloads. PassMark data compression shows a 501.7% lead (690,650 versus 114,775), while extended instructions favor AMD by 481.7% (56,346 versus 9,686). Data encryption results in a 317.1% difference (35,455 versus 8,501). Random string sorting, a test that stresses memory bandwidth and latency, gives AMD a 457.7% advantage with 76,177 points against Intel's 13,659.

Floating-point math performance separates the pair by 333%, as the Ryzen records 128,682 versus 29,722. Prime number finding, a test that benefits from high core counts and efficient integer pipelines, favors AMD by 345.6% (303 versus 68). The PassMark multithread aggregate score shows a 372.6% gap (54,934 versus 11,625), while the physics test gives AMD a 301% lead (3,481 versus 868).

Single-threaded performance is far closer, though the Ryzen still wins every comparison. Cinebench R23 singlecore has AMD ahead by 15.8% (2,044 versus 1,765), and R15 singlecore shows a 19.7% margin (316 versus 264). PassMark single-thread and single-thread aggregate both record 4,147 for AMD against 3,614 for Intel, a 14.7% difference. These margins indicate that the Zen 5 architecture delivers a meaningful per-core advantage over the Wildcat Lake design, even before accounting for the massive core-count disparity.

The average benchmark score places the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 at 77,740, which ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core 3 304 averages 13,745, sitting in the 68th percentile. For context, the Ryzen's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 76,513 (1.6% lower), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P at 76,492 (1.6% lower), the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79,097 (1.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX at 76,212 (2% lower). The Core 3 304 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13,786, 0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-8750H (13,868, 0.9% higher), the Intel Core 5 120UL (13,594, 1.1% lower), and the AMD EPYC 7443 (13,936, 1.4% higher).

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates a clear choice for workloads that demand heavy parallel processing. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 delivers more than six times the multi-core score in Cinebench R23 compared to the Intel Core 3 304, and it leads by more than 500% in R15 multicore. Content creation, scientific computing, virtualization, and any task that scales across threads will favor the AMD part decisively.

The Intel Core 3 304, with its 15 W TDP and 5-core configuration, occupies a different performance tier. Its single-thread results are competitive, trailing the Ryzen by only 14.7% to 19.7% depending on the test, but its multi-thread results fall far behind. The PassMark multithread score of 11,625 places it in the company of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX (13,786) and the Intel Core i7-8750H (13,868), neither of which is a modern flagship.

Users who prioritize battery life, low thermals, and modest computing needs would find the Core 3 304 adequate, but the data shows no benchmark where it surpasses the Ryzen. The Ryzen's 95th percentile ranking versus the Core 3's 68th percentile underscores the gap. For any application where the recorded metrics matter, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the superior processor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². Its codename is Strix Halo. The Intel Core 3 304 uses Intel's 3 nm process with the Wildcat Lake codename, and its architecture field is not specified in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Ryzen allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part lists 192 KB of total L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2, and only 6 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen's larger L3 pool is critical for keeping 16 cores fed, while the Core 3's smaller cache reflects its lower core count and power envelope.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Ryzen supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it includes ECC memory support. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but uses a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it lacks ECC. The Ryzen's 4.3 times higher memory bandwidth directly contributes to its dominance in data compression and random string sorting tests.

PCI Express connectivity differs as well. The Ryzen provides 16 Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Core 3 provides 6 Gen 4 lanes. Integrated graphics also diverge: the Ryzen uses a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part uses Intel Xe3 Graphics with 1 Xe core.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts represent the most obvious difference. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The Ryzen therefore has no simultaneous multithreading advantage to exploit; it simply has more physical cores, and the Intel part lacks hyper-threading entirely.

Clock speeds favor the Ryzen. Its base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to the Core 3's 1.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Ryzen's higher base clock means it sustains more performance under continuous load, while its higher boost clock improves burst performance.

Power consumption differs by a factor of more than 3.5. The Ryzen has a TDP of 55 W, while the Core 3 is rated at 15 W. This makes the Intel part suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs, but it also explains the performance gap.

Sockets are incompatible. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Core 3 uses Intel BGA 1516. Both are mobile platforms, and neither supports unlocked multipliers.

Memory support shows further differences. The Ryzen supports only LPDDR5X, while the Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. However, the Ryzen's quad-channel interface provides 256.0 GB/s versus the Core 3's single-channel 59.7 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD side.

The release dates differ by more than a year. The Ryzen launched on 2025-01-05, while the Core 3 launched on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $309, while the Ryzen's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins all 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core 3 304 wins zero.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark integer math, where the Ryzen scores 200,665 versus 24,640, a 714.4% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 571% gap (35,314 versus 5,263).

Q: How close is single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen leads by 14.7% in PassMark single-thread (4,147 versus 3,614), 15.8% in Cinebench R23 singlecore (2,044 versus 1,765), and 19.7% in Cinebench R15 singlecore (316 versus 264).

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports 256.0 GB/s over a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface. The Core 3 304 supports 59.7 GB/s over a single-channel interface using DDR5 or LPDDR5X.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen averages 77,740 across all recorded benchmarks, ranking in the 95th percentile. The Core 3 averages 13,745, ranking in the 68th percentile.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Ryzen has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Core 3 has 5 cores and 5 threads, with no multithreading support.