AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus, with the Intel part winning 8 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons and the AMD part winning 7. The most decisive results, however, heavily favor AMD. In PassMark integer math, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 posts a score of 200665 against 125091 for the Intel part, a 60.4% advantage. This is the largest margin in either direction across all recorded tests. PassMark extended instructions also shows a substantial AMD lead, with 56346 versus 44565, a 26.4% delta. Data compression favors AMD by 21.4%, with scores of 690650 and 568721 respectively.

In Cinebench multi-core workloads, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 holds a consistent edge. The R15 multi-core test shows 5463 for AMD versus 4640 for Intel, a 17.7% lead. The R23 multi-core result is 35314 versus 30867, a 14.4% advantage. PassMark multi-threaded performance also goes to AMD, with 54934 against 51596, a 6.5% margin. Random string sorting rounds out the AMD wins with 76177 versus 69090, a 10.3% delta.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus counters with strong single-thread and specialized workload results. The largest Intel win is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 486 against 303, a 37.7% advantage. Floating point math also favors Intel significantly, with 162692 versus 128682, a 20.9% delta. Data encryption shows Intel ahead by 15.9%, scoring 42144 versus 35455. The single-thread comparison, recorded in both PassMark single thread and singlethread tests, gives Intel a 4757 score against 4147, a 12.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel at 2261 versus 2044, a 9.6% margin. The R15 single-core result is closer, with Intel at 328 and AMD at 316, a 3.7% delta. PassMark physics is nearly identical, with Intel at 3494 and AMD at 3481, a 0.4% difference.

The average benchmark score places the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 at 77740, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855. This puts the AMD part in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while Intel sits in the 93rd percentile. The AMD part's nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, averages 76513, a 1.6% delta. The Intel part's closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66925, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250KF Plus, a sibling part, scores 66159, which is 1.1% behind the 250K Plus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering and general compute workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35314 and R15 multi-core score of 5463 indicate that heavily threaded tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation benefit from its 16 cores and 32 threads. The 60.4% lead in integer math suggests that integer-heavy calculations, common in scientific computing and data processing, are a particular strength. The 21.4% advantage in data compression and 26.4% lead in extended instructions reinforce this profile. The 10.3% edge in random string sorting also points to strong memory and cache handling for data manipulation tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus excels in single-threaded performance and specific numerical workloads. Its 12.8% lead in PassMark single-thread and 9.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate that lightly threaded applications, such as legacy software, certain productivity tools, and some gaming engines, will run faster on this part. The 37.7% advantage in find prime numbers is a strong indicator for cryptographic and integer factorization workloads. The 20.9% lead in floating point math means that scientific simulations, financial modeling, and other FP-heavy tasks will complete more quickly. The 15.9% edge in data encryption is relevant for security-focused workloads and VPN or disk encryption scenarios.

For workloads that sit between these extremes, the results are mixed. PassMark multi-thread favors AMD by 6.5%, but the physics test is essentially a tie, with Intel ahead by only 0.4%. This suggests that physics simulation, which often combines scalar and vector instructions, does not strongly favor either architecture. The overall win count of 8 for Intel and 7 for AMD masks the magnitude of the individual margins. AMD's wins tend to be larger, while Intel's wins, though more numerous, are often narrower. The PassMark data encryption win for Intel is substantial at 15.9%, but the AMD wins in integer math and extended instructions are even larger.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, built on a 3 nm process also at TSMC. It has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning it lacks simultaneous multithreading, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Intel part has a higher base and boost clock, which contributes to its single-thread advantages.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and only 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's 64 MB L3 is more than double the Intel part's 30 MB, which helps explain the AMD advantage in data compression and random string sorting, workloads that benefit from larger caches. The Intel part's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches support its single-thread performance.

Memory support also differs. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, yielding a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is more than double that of the Intel part, which is a key factor in its multi-core and data-intensive workload advantages. Both parts support ECC memory.

The sockets and platforms are incompatible. AMD uses Socket FP11, which is a mobile socket, while Intel uses Socket 1851 for desktop. This aligns with the market segments: the AMD part is classified as Mobile, while the Intel part is Desktop. The process nodes differ, with AMD at 4 nm and Intel at 3 nm. The Intel part has a stated transistor count of 17,800 million and a die size of 243 mm². The AMD part's die is listed as 2x 70.6 mm². PCIe support favors Intel, which uses Gen 5 with 20 lanes, while AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD part includes Radeon 8060S graphics, while the Intel part includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The TDP figures are 55 watts for AMD and 125 watts for Intel, indicating that the AMD part is designed for lower power envelopes despite its higher multi-core performance. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not. The Intel part's release date is later, listed as 2026-03-10, compared to AMD's 2025-01-05.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 35314 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 14.4% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus at 30867.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus leads in PassMark single-thread with 4757 versus 4147, a 12.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel leads by 9.6% with 2261 versus 2044.

Q: Which part has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads, with no multithreading.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 provides 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth using quad-channel LPDDR5X. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 115.2 GB/s using dual-channel DDR5.

Q: Which processor wins in floating point math?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 162692 in PassMark floating point math, which is 20.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 at 128682.

Q: How do the overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus averages 66855. The AMD part is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, the Intel part in the 93rd.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 | Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus |

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

| Cores | 16 | 18 |

| Threads | 32 | 18 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 125 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Arrow Lake Refresh |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 17,800 million |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 243 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 115.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 5, 20 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-03-10 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001099 | SA4UZ |

The Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $199. The AMD part has no launch MSRP listed. The Intel part's higher core count, smaller process node, and larger per-core caches contrast with the AMD part's larger shared L3 cache, higher thread count, and superior memory bandwidth. These specification differences map directly onto the benchmark results: AMD's memory bandwidth and L3 capacity drive its multi-core and data-heavy wins, while Intel's clock speeds and per-core cache sizes support its single-thread and specialized arithmetic leads.