AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 368H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins 12 of the 15 recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H takes 3. The margins, however, tell a more nuanced story than the win count alone.

The AMD part dominates in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 5463 against 2844 for the Intel part, a 92.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a smaller but still decisive lead: 35314 versus 28221, a 25.1% delta. PassMark multi-thread confirms the pattern, with the AMD part scoring 54934 against 32956, a 66.7% gap. These results align with the core configuration: both chips have 16 cores, but the AMD processor supports 32 threads while the Intel part is limited to 16 threads with no hyperthreading.

The most extreme AMD victories come in integer-heavy and data-processing tasks. PassMark integer math shows 200665 versus 88083, a 127.8% lead. Data compression follows at 690650 versus 312927, a 120.7% delta. Extended instructions see 56346 against 25669, a 119.5% gap. Random string sorting doubles the Intel score: 76177 versus 38093, exactly 100% higher. These are not marginal wins; they represent roughly double the throughput in several synthetic workloads.

Floating-point performance favors AMD but by a smaller margin. PassMark floating point math shows 128682 versus 105681, a 21.8% lead. Physics simulation follows the same pattern: 3481 versus 2857, also 21.8%. Data encryption shows 35455 versus 25228, a 40.5% advantage for the AMD chip.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins in single-core Cinebench tests by substantial margins. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Intel part scores 401 versus 316, a 21.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an even larger gap: 3984 versus 2044, a 48.7% advantage for Intel. This is a significant finding, as it indicates the Panther Lake architecture delivers far superior per-thread performance in rendering workloads.

The picture becomes more complex in PassMark single-thread tests. Here the AMD part wins narrowly: 4147 versus 4005, a 3.5% delta. The Intel chip also takes PassMark find prime numbers at 321 versus 303, a 5.6% lead, which is its third and final win.

The average benchmark score confirms the overall hierarchy. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 averages 77740, placing it at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core Ultra X7 368H averages 40518, at the 87th percentile. For context, the AMD part sits 1.6% above the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and 2% above the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX, while remaining 1.7% below the Intel Core i9-14900K. The Intel part, meanwhile, is nearly tied with the Intel Core 7 253PE (0.1% below), the Intel Core 5 223PE (0.2% below), and the AMD Ryzen 9 7940H (0.2% above).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 leads in every multi-threaded benchmark. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 35314 versus 28221, a 25.1% advantage. PassMark multi-thread shows 54934 versus 32956, a 66.7% lead. The largest multi-core gap is in Cinebench R15, where AMD leads by 92.1%.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 21.2% (401 versus 316), Cinebench R23 single-core by 48.7% (3984 versus 2044), and PassMark find prime numbers by 5.6% (321 versus 303).

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The AMD part takes a narrow 3.5% lead in PassMark single-thread, scoring 4147 versus 4005. This contrasts sharply with the Cinebench single-core results, where Intel leads by 21.2% and 48.7% in R15 and R23 respectively.

Q: What is the overall performance percentile for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database with an average benchmark score of 77740. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H sits at the 87th percentile with an average score of 40518.

Q: How does the AMD part compare to the Intel Core i9-14900K?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 averages 77740, which is 1.7% below the Core i9-14900K's average score of 79097. This places the mobile AMD chip in direct competition with a high-end desktop Intel part.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has 18 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part also has 16 cores with 32 threads, while the Intel part has 16 cores with 16 threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H uses the Panther Lake architecture, built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry.

Core and thread counts differ despite both having 16 cores. The AMD part supports 32 threads, indicating simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part supports only 16 threads, meaning each core handles a single thread. This explains the large multi-core benchmark gaps, as the AMD chip can process twice as many threads concurrently.

Cache hierarchies diverge substantially. The AMD processor has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor has 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and only 18 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, which likely contributes to its single-core Cinebench wins, while the AMD part has over three times the shared L3 capacity.

Memory architecture also differs. Both support LPDDR5X memory, but the AMD part uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage helps the AMD part in data-intensive workloads like compression and encryption.

PCIe support differs significantly. The AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip provides Gen 5 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation but far fewer lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD processor uses the Radeon 8060S, while the Intel processor uses the Arc B390. Both are integrated solutions for mobile platforms. The AMD part supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel processor uses Intel BGA 2540. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has a release date of 2025-01-05, while the Intel part is dated 2026-01-04, a full year later in the database.

Specification Differences

The core specifications show clear distinctions. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The AMD part runs 1 GHz higher at base and 0.10 GHz higher at boost.

Thermal design power differs by more than double. The AMD part has a TDP of 55, while the Intel part has a TDP of 25. This explains the AMD part's ability to sustain higher multi-core performance, though it also implies higher power draw in a mobile chassis.

Both processors have 16 cores, but the AMD part has 32 threads versus 16 for the Intel part. The AMD processor has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel processor's die size is not recorded in the database. The AMD process node is 4 nm at TSMC, while the Intel process node is 3 nm at Intel.

Memory bandwidth shows a 1.67x advantage for AMD: 256.0 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. The memory bus is quad-channel on the AMD part and dual-channel on the Intel part. ECC support is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part.

The L3 cache differs by 46 MB: 64 MB shared on AMD versus 18 MB shared on Intel. Per-core L1 and L2 caches are larger on the Intel part: 192 KB versus 80 KB for L1, and 2.5 MB versus 1 MB for L2. The PCIe configuration differs: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD, Gen 5 with 4 lanes for Intel.

The market segment is mobile for both. Production status is active for both. The part numbers are 100-000001099 for AMD and SA4R7Q9EJ for Intel. The AMD generation is listed as Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5, Strix Halo), while the Intel generation is Ultra X7 (Panther Lake-H).

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data points to two distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 delivers dominant multi-threaded performance across every measured test, with leads ranging from 21.8% in floating point and physics to 127.8% in integer math. Its 32 threads, 64 MB L3 cache, and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for workloads that scale across cores, such as rendering, data compression, encryption, and scientific computing.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 368H shows superior single-core performance in Cinebench tests, with a 48.7% lead in R23 single-core and a 21.2% lead in R15 single-core. Its higher base clocks relative to TDP, larger per-core caches, and lower 25 TDP suggest it is better suited for lighter, bursty workloads where single-thread latency matters more than throughput. The near-tie in PassMark single-thread (AMD leading by 3.5%) tempers this conclusion, but the Cinebench gap is substantial and consistent.

The overall average benchmark score strongly favors AMD: 77740 versus 40518, a 91.9% difference. The AMD part also ranks higher in the database at the 95th percentile versus the 87th percentile for Intel. However, the Intel part's 25 TDP indicates it may fit into thinner, more power-constrained chassis, while the AMD part's 55 TDP demands more robust cooling.

For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, data processing, or memory bandwidth, the data supports the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395. For users prioritizing single-core rendering performance or operating within a lower thermal envelope, the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H shows advantages in specific tests. The choice depends on which benchmark profile matches the intended workload, as the two chips do not compete evenly across all categories.