AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core 3 305 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database presents a decisive comparison between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the Intel Core 3 305. The AMD part wins all 15 recorded head-to-head tests, with zero wins for the Intel chip. The average benchmark score for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is 77740, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core 3 305 averages 18302, sitting in the 72nd percentile.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 delivers multi-core performance that is 313.2% ahead in Cinebench R15 multicore and 169.1% ahead in Cinebench R23 multicore. Single-core results are closer, with the AMD chip leading by 69.9% in Cinebench R15 singlecore and by just 10.4% in Cinebench R23 singlecore. The PassMark single-thread test shows a narrower 4.3% gap, indicating that the Intel part is competitive in lightly threaded workloads despite its overall disadvantage.

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the choice for users requiring heavy multi-threaded throughput, large cache capacity, and substantial integrated graphics capability. The Intel Core 3 305, with its lower TDP and smaller footprint, suits scenarios where power efficiency is prioritized and workloads are modest. No benchmark in the database favors the Intel part, so the selection hinges on the specific requirements of the target system.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with a codename of Strix Halo. The Intel Core 3 305 uses Intel's own 3 nm process node, under the Wildcat Lake codename. These process differences influence transistor density and power characteristics, though the database does not list transistor counts for either part.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD processor has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel processor has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part does not use hyperthreading to reach 32 threads; it simply has twice as many threads as cores. The Intel part has no extra threads, meaning each core handles a single thread. This structural difference explains much of the multi-core performance gap.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 305 has 192 KB of L1 cache (listed as a single figure, not per core), 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's 64 MB L3 cache provides a substantial buffer for data-heavy workloads, while the Intel part's smaller cache aligns with its lower core count.

Memory support shows another architectural split. The AMD chip supports LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel chip supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The memory bandwidth difference is massive, with the AMD part offering more than four times the theoretical throughput.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core 3 305 provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only). Both use Gen 4, but the AMD part has more lanes for expansion. Integrated graphics differ: the AMD chip includes Radeon 8060S, while the Intel chip includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The database does not provide performance numbers for either integrated GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 200665 against the Intel Core 3 305's 32295, a delta of 521.4%. This result reflects the combination of more cores, higher clocks, and wider execution resources. Data compression shows a 370.3% advantage (690650 vs 146857), and random string sorting shows a 332.3% advantage (76177 vs 17623). These workloads scale with core count and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the AMD part.

Cinebench R15 multicore gives the AMD processor a 313.2% lead (5463 vs 1322), while Cinebench R23 multicore shows a 169.1% lead (35314 vs 13123). The R23 test is more demanding and slightly compresses the gap, but the AMD part still dominates. Extended instructions in PassMark show a 316.1% lead (56346 vs 13543), and the multithread test shows a 255.8% lead (54934 vs 15439). Floating point math gives the AMD chip a 204.3% advantage (128682 vs 42284), while data encryption shows a 221.8% lead (35455 vs 11019).

The narrower wins appear in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R15 singlecore has the AMD part ahead by 69.9% (316 vs 186), which is a large margin for a single-core test. Cinebench R23 singlecore narrows this to 10.4% (2044 vs 1852). The PassMark single-thread test (listed as both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread with identical scores) shows the AMD processor at 4147 versus the Intel processor at 3977, a 4.3% lead. This indicates that the Intel Core 3 305 has respectable per-core performance, but it cannot match the AMD part's combination of higher boost clock and architectural efficiency.

The physics test in PassMark shows the AMD processor at 3481 versus 1233, a 182.3% lead. Find prime numbers gives the AMD part a 163.5% lead (303 vs 115). These results confirm that the AMD processor's advantage persists across all recorded benchmark categories.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, according to the database.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 | Intel Core 3 305 |

|----------------|----------------------|------------------|

| Cores | 16 | 6 |

| Threads | 32 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | (not listed) |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Wildcat Lake |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5, Strix Halo) | Core 3 (Wildcat Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | (not listed) |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 192 KB (total listed) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2.5 MB (total) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 6 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | (not listed) | $309 |

| Part Number | 100-000001099 | SAE3L |

The AMD processor has a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 1.50 GHz) and a higher boost clock (5.10 GHz vs 4.30 GHz). The TDP difference is substantial: 55 W for the AMD part versus 15 W for the Intel part. The Intel chip uses a smaller process node (3 nm vs 4 nm) but has fewer cores and a lower power envelope. The AMD part has a listed die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel part does not have a die size entry.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 3 305 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has more than double the core count and more than five times the thread count.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 35314 versus the Intel Core 3 305's 13123, a 169.1% lead. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD part leads by 313.2% (5463 vs 1322).

Q: Is the Intel Core 3 305 competitive in single-threaded tests?

A: The Intel part is closer in single-threaded workloads. The PassMark single-thread test shows the AMD processor at 4147 and the Intel processor at 3977, a 4.3% difference. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows a 10.4% gap (2044 vs 1852), while Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a larger 69.9% gap (316 vs 186).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 305 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a TDP of 55 W, while the Intel Core 3 305 has a TDP of 15 W. The Intel processor uses significantly less power, which may influence system design and battery life in mobile devices.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 ranks in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 77740. The Intel Core 3 305 ranks in the 72nd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 18302.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins every recorded benchmark in the database, so the use-case split depends on workload intensity and system constraints rather than benchmark outcomes.

For multi-threaded productivity, the AMD part is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multicore at 35314, PassMark multithread at 54934, and PassMark integer math at 200665 all demonstrate that the 16-core, 32-thread configuration handles rendering, compilation, and data processing with a wide margin. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth further support workloads that iterate over large datasets. The quad-channel memory bus and ECC support make this processor suitable for memory-sensitive tasks, though the database does not include specific ECC performance tests.

For single-threaded tasks, the AMD part still wins, but the margin is smaller. The PassMark single-thread score of 4147 versus 3977 (4.3% lead) means that everyday applications that rely on one or two cores will see a modest improvement on the AMD side. The Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 2044 versus 1852 (10.4% lead) confirms this. Users who prioritize raw single-core speed over all other factors will find the AMD processor acceptable, but the Intel part is not far behind in this specific metric.

The Intel Core 3 305 wins in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP is significantly lower than the AMD part's 55 W, and its 3 nm process node from Intel suggests a smaller die footprint, though the database does not list a die size for the Intel chip. For fanless designs, ultra-portable laptops, or systems where battery life and thermal output are the primary constraints, the Intel processor's lower power draw is an advantage. Its single-channel memory bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are sufficient for light office work, web browsing, and media playback, but the database does not include benchmarks for these specific activities.

The integrated graphics differ, with the AMD part using Radeon 8060S and the Intel part using Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe). The database does not provide graphics benchmarks, so no quantitative comparison is possible. However, the AMD processor's larger power envelope and higher memory bandwidth would typically support more capable integrated graphics, but this is not confirmed by recorded data.

The release dates differ, with the AMD processor released on 2025-01-05 and the Intel processor on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $309, which can be stated once as a reference point, while the AMD part has no launch MSRP listed.

In summary, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 dominates all measured performance categories and is the recommended choice for compute-heavy mobile workstations. The Intel Core 3 305 serves the low-power mobile segment, where its 15 W TDP and compact design matter more than raw benchmark scores. No recorded test favors the Intel part, so users who need performance should select the AMD processor, while users who need extreme power efficiency should consider the Intel part despite its benchmark deficit.