AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs Intel Xeon 638 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clear split between the Intel Xeon 638 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395, with the Intel part taking 10 of the 15 recorded benchmark wins. The most dramatic margin belongs to Intel in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon 638 scores 6663 against the AMD part’s 2044, a 226% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it indicates a fundamental difference in how the two processors handle lightly threaded workloads. The Cinebench R15 single-core result reinforces the pattern: Intel wins 671 to 316, a 112.3% lead. These are not small edges; they are dominant, order-of-magnitude separations in single-threaded rendering performance.

However, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 does not cede all ground. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD chip scores 5463 against Intel’s 4757, a 12.9% win. This is an interesting reversal, because in the newer Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Xeon 638 swings back with a 47202 score versus 35314, a 33.7% advantage. The data suggests that the two processors scale differently across rendering workloads, with the AMD part performing better in the older R15 multicore test while Intel dominates the more intensive R23 test. In passmark integer math, AMD takes a decisive win: 200665 versus 184884, a 7.9% margin. The AMD chip also leads in random string sorting, scoring 76177 against 74318, a 2.4% edge, and in passmark single-thread, where it posts 4147 versus 3670, an 11.5% lead.

The remaining wins for Intel are consistent but varied in magnitude. In passmark physics, the Xeon 638 scores 4704 against 3481, a 35.1% lead. In passmark find prime numbers, Intel wins 381 to 303, a 25.7% margin. Floating point math goes to Intel at 144757 versus 128682, a 12.5% difference. The data compression test shows Intel ahead at 725818 versus 690650, a 5.1% edge. Data encryption is close: Intel wins 36030 to 35455, a 1.6% margin, and extended instructions are nearly identical, with Intel ahead by just 0.3% (56498 versus 56346). The passmark multithread test is also close, with Intel winning 55651 to 54934, a 1.3% difference. Overall, the average benchmark score in the database places the Intel Xeon 638 at 80723, which sits within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 in its nearest rival list. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average score of 77740, which places it 1.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX in its own rival group.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark and follows the benchmark patterns. The Intel Xeon 638 is the clear choice for single-threaded and lightly threaded performance, as evidenced by its 226% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 112.3% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. This translates directly into workloads where one or two cores dominate, such as legacy applications, certain database operations, and tasks that are not well-parallelized. The Xeon also excels in physics simulations, with a 35.1% margin, and in prime number calculations, with a 25.7% edge, suggesting a strength in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads. For rendering in the Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Xeon’s 33.7% lead positions it as the stronger option for modern, heavily threaded content creation tasks that tax the full processor.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395, on the other hand, wins in integer math, random string sorting, and single-thread passmark tests. The 7.9% lead in passmark integer math and the 2.4% lead in random string sorting point to a strength in data manipulation, sorting algorithms, and general integer processing. The 11.5% advantage in passmark single-thread is notable, as it contradicts the Cinebench single-core results, indicating that the AMD part’s single-threaded performance depends heavily on the instruction mix. The AMD chip also wins the older Cinebench R15 multicore test, which may reflect a different scaling pattern in that specific workload. For users prioritizing integer throughput, sorting tasks, or the specific passmark single-thread workload, the AMD chip is the better fit. However, the data shows that the AMD part’s wins are narrower in percentage terms, with its largest victory being the 12.9% in Cinebench R15 multicore, whereas Intel’s wins include several double-digit margins.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is fundamental. The Intel Xeon 638 is built on Granite Rapids architecture, specifically the Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) generation, and uses a 5 nm process node fabricated by Intel. The die size is 598 mm². The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, part of the Ryzen AI Max generation, and is built on a 4 nm process node by TSMC. The AMD die is significantly smaller, listed as 2x 70.6 mm². Both processors have 16 cores and 32 threads, but the cache hierarchy differs. The Intel part has 112 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 72 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel’s larger per-core caches and larger L3 pool give it an advantage in cache-sensitive workloads, which aligns with its wins in physics and prime number tests.

Clock speeds also differ, with the Intel Xeon 638 running at a 3.20 GHz base clock and a 4.80 GHz boost clock, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 runs at a 3.00 GHz base and a 5.10 GHz boost. Despite the lower base clock, the AMD part’s higher boost clock and 4 nm process node contribute to its wins in integer math and single-thread passmark tests. The TDP is a major differentiator: the Intel chip is rated at 180 watts, while the AMD chip is rated at just 55 watts. This is a 125-watt gap, and it explains why the AMD part is classified as a mobile processor while the Intel part is a server/workstation chip. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 also includes integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, while the Intel Xeon 638 has no integrated graphics. Memory support differs as well: the Intel chip uses DDR5 with a quad-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD chip uses LPDDR5X, also quad-channel, but with a higher 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another major split, with the Intel part offering Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only) versus the AMD part’s Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD chip is locked. The sockets are entirely different: Intel Socket 4710 for the Xeon, AMD Socket FP11 for the Ryzen.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 scores 6663 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 226% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395’s score of 2044.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: The largest win for the AMD part is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where it scores 5463 versus 4757, a 12.9% lead. Its other wins are in passmark integer math (7.9%), passmark single-thread (11.5%), and passmark random string sorting (2.4%).

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 has a TDP of 180 watts, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a TDP of 55 watts.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon 638 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 support ECC memory.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon 638 has an average benchmark score of 80723, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average score of 77740. The Intel part’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395, scores 80762, a 0% delta, while the AMD part’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX, scores 76513, a 1.6% delta.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the specification fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

• Manufacturer: Intel versus AMD
• Base Clock: 3.20 GHz (Intel) versus 3.00 GHz (AMD)
• Boost Clock: 4.80 GHz (Intel) versus 5.10 GHz (AMD)
• TDP: 180 watts (Intel) versus 55 watts (AMD)
• Socket: Intel Socket 4710 versus AMD Socket FP11
• Architecture: Granite Rapids versus Zen 5
• Codename: Granite Rapids versus Strix Halo
• Generation: Xeon 600 (Granite Rapids-WS) versus Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))
• Process Node: 5 nm (Intel) versus 4 nm (AMD)
• Foundry: Intel versus TSMC
• Die Size: 598 mm² versus 2x 70.6 mm²
• L1 Cache: 112 KB per core versus 80 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 2 MB per core versus 1 MB per core
• L3 Cache: 72 MB shared versus 64 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: N/A versus Radeon 8060S
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation versus Mobile
• Release Date: 2026-02-01 versus 2025-01-05
• Launch MSRP: $899 (Intel only, AMD has no recorded launch MSRP)
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes (Intel) versus No (AMD)
• Part Number: SA2DN versus 100-000001099