AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a stark contrast between these two mobile processors. Across the head-to-head benchmark suite, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 secures 12 wins out of 15 tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H manages 3 victories. The margin of these wins, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw count alone.

The AMD part dominates in multi-threaded workloads with extraordinary margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 5463 against the Intel chip's 2870, a 90.3% advantage. The gap narrows somewhat in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where AMD's 35314 beats Intel's 28477 by 24%. PassMark integer math shows the largest single delta at 139.8%, with AMD scoring 200665 versus Intel's 83695. Data compression follows closely, with AMD's 690650 outpacing Intel's 327455 by 110.9%. Extended instructions also favor AMD heavily, 56346 versus 26901, a 109.5% difference.

PassMark multi-thread confirms the pattern: AMD's 54934 beats Intel's 33429 by 64.3%. Random string sorting shows AMD leading 76177 to 39814, a 91.3% spread. Floating point math favors AMD by 24.2% (128682 versus 103615), and data encryption shows AMD ahead 35455 to 25845, a 37.2% gap. Even physics simulation, a mixed workload, goes to AMD with 3481 versus 2880, a 20.9% advantage.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins are concentrated in single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, Intel scores 405 against AMD's 316, a 22% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows Intel ahead 4020 versus 2044, a 49.2% margin. PassMark find prime numbers also goes to Intel, 326 versus 303, a 7.1% edge.

Interestingly, the single-thread PassMark tests tell a different story. The AMD part edges out Intel 4147 to 4043, a 2.6% win in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread. This suggests the Cinebench single-core results may reflect workload-specific optimizations rather than a universal single-thread advantage.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures explain much of the benchmark split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Strix Halo. It deploys 16 cores and 32 threads, meaning simultaneous multithreading is enabled. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, codenamed Panther Lake, uses Panther Lake architecture on Intel's 3 nm process. It also has 16 cores but only 16 threads, indicating no hyperthreading on this part.

Cache configurations differ substantially. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The AMD chip's 64 MB L3 is more than triple Intel's shared cache, which likely contributes to the AMD lead in data-heavy workloads like compression and sorting.

Memory architecture also diverges. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel chip supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus at 115.2 GB/s. AMD's memory bandwidth is more than double Intel's, a critical factor for multi-threaded throughput.

Process node differences matter. Intel's 3 nm process (foundry: Intel) is smaller than AMD's 4 nm TSMC node. However, the AMD part compensates with a much larger power envelope: 55 W TDP versus Intel's 25 W TDP. This explains why AMD can sustain higher multi-core performance despite the larger node.

Other differences: AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2540. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not. AMD's PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel offers Gen 5 with 12 lanes. Integrated graphics differ too: AMD pairs with Radeon 8060S, Intel with Intel Xe3 Graphics. AMD's die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm²; Intel's die size is not recorded.

Release dates also differ: AMD launched January 5, 2025; Intel's launch is dated January 4, 2026. Both are mobile parts with active production status and locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data indicates two very different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is a high-power, high-throughput processor aimed at sustained multi-threaded workloads. Its 55 W TDP, 32 threads, 64 MB L3, and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth combine to deliver class-leading multi-core scores. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H, with its 25 W TDP and 16 threads, appears optimized for efficiency and single-core responsiveness.

The benchmark database shows AMD's average benchmark score at 77740, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (average score 76513, delta 1.6%), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (76492, delta 1.6%), and the Intel Core i9-14900K (79097, delta -1.7%). The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits remarkably close to desktop flagship territory, trailing the i9-14900K by only 1.7% on average.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H averages 41263, placing it in the 87th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H (41215, delta 0.1%), the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440 (41208, delta 0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (41376, delta -0.3%). The Intel chip is effectively tied with these parts, showing no significant average advantage over its direct peers.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded rendering, compilation, or data processing, the AMD part is the clear choice. Its 24% Cinebench R23 multi-core lead and 64.3% PassMark multi-thread lead indicate substantial real-world throughput gains. For single-core-bound applications, the Intel chip's 49.2% Cinebench R23 single-core advantage matters, though the PassMark single-thread scores suggest the gap may be narrower in general use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 32 threads from 16 cores. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H has 16 threads from 16 cores, showing no simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: AMD provides 256.0 GB/s via quad-channel LPDDR5X. Intel provides 115.2 GB/s via dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X. AMD's bandwidth is more than double Intel's.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: AMD leads multi-core 35314 versus 28477, a 24% advantage. Intel leads single-core 4020 versus 2044, a 49.2% advantage.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: AMD has 64 MB shared L3. Intel has 18 MB shared L3. AMD's cache is more than three times larger.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: AMD is rated at 55 W. Intel is rated at 25 W. The AMD part draws more power to sustain higher multi-core performance.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: No. AMD supports ECC memory. Intel does not support ECC.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins decisively in every multi-threaded benchmark category recorded. Data compression shows a 110.9% advantage, integer math a 139.8% advantage, and extended instructions a 109.5% advantage. These are workloads that scale with core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth, all areas where AMD holds a significant edge. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth directly benefit random string sorting (91.3% lead) and data encryption (37.2% lead).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins in Cinebench single-core tests and prime number finding. The 49.2% Cinebench R23 single-core lead suggests Intel's architecture extracts more performance per thread in certain scalar workloads. The 7.1% prime number advantage indicates strength in integer-heavy single-thread loops. However, the PassMark single-thread scores show AMD leading by 2.6%, so Intel's single-core wins may be specific to Cinebench's rendering engine rather than universal.

For sustained multi-core workloads like video rendering, scientific computing, or database operations, the AMD part's 55 W TDP and 32 threads deliver measured results that are consistently 20% to 140% faster. For power-constrained devices, the Intel chip's 25 W TDP allows thinner, cooler designs while still providing competitive single-core performance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 | Intel Core Ultra 7 366H |

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

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Panther Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 3 nm (Intel) |

| Cores | 16 | 16 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 2540 |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 18 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Intel Xe3 Graphics |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001099 | SA4R9Q9EL |

The specification table highlights the fundamental trade-off: AMD offers more threads, more cache, more memory bandwidth, and higher clocks at significantly higher power draw. Intel offers a smaller process node, newer PCIe generation, and lower power consumption, but with reduced thread count and cache capacity. The benchmark data confirms that AMD's resource advantages translate directly into multi-threaded performance dominance, while Intel's efficiency focus yields single-core wins that do not compensate for the multi-threaded deficit in aggregate scoring.