AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, while the Intel Core 5 315 scores 18188. The AMD part sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, whereas the Intel part is in the 72nd percentile.

Q: Which chip wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 leads in all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2044 against 1832, a 11.6% advantage. In Passmark single-thread, the margin narrows to 3.1% (4147 vs 4021).

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

A: The largest delta is in Passmark integer math, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 200665 versus 31690 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 533.2% difference. Data compression shows a 372.6% gap (690650 vs 146143).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has no hyper-threading.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 features quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are both chips unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the Intel Core 5 315 have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process and uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename. It belongs to the Ryzen AI Max generation. The die is composed of two 70.6 mm² chiplets. The Intel Core 5 315 uses Intel's 3 nm process with the Wildcat Lake codename, part of the Core 5 generation, and no separate architecture name is recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The AMD chip allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD processor also supports ECC memory, while the Intel chip does not.

Memory configuration is a major split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 runs quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 runs single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X at 59.7 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, the Intel part provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. AMD uses the Radeon 8060S, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD chip has a 55 W TDP, a 3.00 GHz base clock, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Intel chip has a 15 W TDP, a 1.50 GHz base clock, and a 4.40 GHz boost clock. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 1516.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins all 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The scale of the wins varies from modest to overwhelming. In Passmark single-thread, the AMD chip scores 4147 against 4021, a 3.1% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a larger 11.6% gap, with 2044 versus 1832.

Multi-threaded workloads show a far bigger divide. Cinebench R15 multicore gives the AMD part 5463 against 1308, a 317.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 35314 versus 12981, a 172% margin. Passmark multithread delivers 54934 against 15272, a 259.7% difference. The Intel part's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD EPYC 9274F and Intel Core i7-9700, both with essentially identical average scores, which places the Core 5 315 in the same performance class as older desktop parts.

Specialized workloads amplify the gap further. Passmark integer math shows the AMD chip at 200665, which is 533.2% ahead of the Intel chip's 31690. Data compression scores 690650 versus 146143, a 372.6% advantage. Random string sorting sees 76177 against 17551, a 334% lead. Extended instructions produce 56346 versus 13143, a 328.7% gap. Data encryption results in 35455 versus 11119, or 218.9% ahead. Floating point math delivers 128682 against 42441, a 203.2% margin. Find prime numbers scores 303 versus 112, a 170.5% difference. Physics processing gives 3481 versus 1163, a 199.3% lead.

The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, Intel Core i9-14900K, and AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX. The deltas against these parts range from 2% ahead of the Ryzen 9 8945HX to 1.7% behind the Core i9-14900K. This places the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 in the upper tier of desktop and workstation-class CPUs despite being a mobile part. The Intel Core 5 315, by contrast, sits alongside the AMD EPYC 9274F, Intel Core i7-9700, Intel Core i7-1365U, and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, with deltas within 0.1% of those parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 belongs to a performance class that competes with high-end desktop and workstation CPUs, as shown by its 95th percentile ranking and its proximity to the Core i9-14900K and Threadripper PRO 9945WX in average score. The Intel Core 5 315 is a low-power mobile part that trades throughput for efficiency, with its 72nd percentile ranking and average scores matching older desktop chips like the Core i7-9700.

For workloads that depend on multi-core scaling, heavy integer math, compression, encryption, or floating point, the AMD part is decisively faster, with margins between 170.5% and 533.2% across those tests. Even in single-core tests, where the Intel part is relatively strongest, the AMD chip still leads by 3.1% to 11.6%. The Intel Core 5 315 does not win a single recorded benchmark. Users who need a compact, low-power platform for light tasks and basic integrated graphics may find the Intel part adequate, but the data gives no scenario in which the Intel chip outperforms the AMD chip.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 also offers a much higher memory bandwidth ceiling at 256.0 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, which matters for memory-bound workloads. Its 16 cores and 32 threads provide substantial parallel throughput, and its 64 MB of shared L3 cache dwarfs the Intel part's 6 MB. The Intel chip's advantages are limited to a smaller physical footprint, lower TDP, and a newer 3 nm process node, but none of those translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 16 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Threads: 32 (AMD) vs 6 (Intel)
• Base clock: 3.00 GHz (AMD) vs 1.50 GHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 5.10 GHz (AMD) vs 4.40 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 55 W (AMD) vs 15 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket FP11 (AMD) vs Intel BGA 1516 (Intel)
• Codename: Strix Halo (AMD) vs Wildcat Lake (Intel)
• Generation: Ryzen AI Max (AMD) vs Core 5 (Intel)
• Process node: 4 nm (AMD) vs 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) vs Intel (Intel)
• Die size: 2x 70.6 mm² (AMD) vs not recorded (Intel)
• L1 cache: 80 KB per core (AMD) vs 192 KB total (Intel)
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) vs 2.5 MB total (Intel)
• L3 cache: 64 MB shared (AMD) vs 6 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory support: LPDDR5X (AMD) vs DDR5, LPDDR5X (Intel)
• Memory bus: Quad-channel (AMD) vs Single-channel (Intel)
• Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s (AMD) vs 59.7 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC memory: supported (AMD) vs not supported (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 lanes (AMD) vs Gen 4, 6 lanes (Intel)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 8060S (AMD) vs Intel Xe3 Graphics, 2 Xe (Intel)
• Release date: 2025-01-05 (AMD) vs 2026-04-15 (Intel)
• Part number: 100-000001099 (AMD) vs SAEFC (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: none recorded (AMD) vs $340 (Intel)

Fields that match: both are mobile market segment parts, both are active in production, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins in every recorded benchmark category. Its largest margins appear in integer math (533.2%), data compression (372.6%), random string sorting (334%), and extended instructions (328.7%). These results point to workloads like code compilation, database operations, archive handling, and encryption-heavy tasks. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth support large working sets that would stall the Intel part's smaller 6 MB cache and single-channel memory.

The Intel Core 5 315 shows no benchmark wins. Its closest result is Passmark single-thread, where it trails by 3.1%, meaning the AMD part's single-core advantage is real but not enormous. The Intel chip does offer a lower 15 W TDP, which suggests lower power draw, and its 3 nm process node indicates a newer manufacturing technology. For systems where power consumption and heat output are the primary constraints, the Intel part could be the more practical choice. However, the recorded data does not include power efficiency measurements, so any such conclusion must rest on the TDP specification alone.

The AMD part also wins in memory bandwidth by a factor of 4.3 (256.0 GB/s vs 59.7 GB/s), which directly benefits any memory-intensive workload. Its 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes double the Intel part's 6 lanes, allowing more expansion or faster I/O devices. The AMD chip's ECC memory support adds a reliability feature absent from the Intel part. For integrated graphics, the Radeon 8060S is the stronger option on paper, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database.

Users choosing between these two should base the decision on workload class. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 suits heavy parallel compute, large data sets, and multi-threaded professional applications. The Intel Core 5 315 fits a low-power mobile design where battery life and thermal limits outweigh raw performance. The benchmark database records no test in which the Intel chip comes out ahead.