AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 and the Intel Core 7 251TE, with Intel taking 8 of the 11 head-to-head tests while AMD claims 3. The most decisive Intel victories come in computationally heavy workloads. In passmark_integer_math, the Intel Core 7 251TE scores 125739 against AMD's 79789, a 36.5% advantage. Passmark_floating_point_math shows a similar story, with Intel at 85607 versus AMD's 53084, a 38% lead. Passmark_find_prime_numbers delivers Intel's largest margin at 46.4% ahead, scoring 140 compared to AMD's 75.

The Intel part also dominates in data encryption. Its passmark_data_encryption score of 22176 beats AMD's 14502 by 34.6%. Passmark_physics shows Intel ahead by 42.2%, scoring 1938 versus 1120. In passmark_data_compression, Intel records 334399 against AMD's 293595, a 12.2% edge. Passmark_random_string_sorting favors Intel by 21.4%, with scores of 39643 and 31153 respectively. Passmark_multithread puts Intel at 30022 versus AMD's 24244, a 19.2% margin.

AMD's wins are concentrated in single-threaded performance and extended instruction efficiency. Passmark_single_thread shows AMD at 3995 against Intel's 3568, a 12% advantage. The same margin appears in the duplicate passmark_singlethread test. The most striking AMD win comes in passmark_extended_instructions, where AMD scores 24333 versus Intel's 16974, a 43.4% lead. That result indicates the Zen 5 architecture handles advanced instruction sets with notably higher throughput per cycle.

The aggregate benchmark averages reflect this distribution. AMD's avgBenchmarkScore sits at 48171, while Intel's is 41650, a difference of roughly 15.6% in AMD's favor despite losing most head-to-head tests. This apparent contradiction stems from the different benchmark suites recorded for each chip. The AMD part's Passmark suite includes a high data compression score that boosts its average, while Intel's average includes Cinebench results that AMD does not have recorded. The percentileVsAllCpus rankings put AMD at the 90th percentile and Intel at the 88th, indicating both sit near the top of the database.

The nearest rival data places each chip in context. AMD's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A with an avgScore of 48201, a 0.1% delta. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900 and Ryzen 9 7900X3D both sit within 0.5%. Intel's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H at 41621, a 0.1% delta, with the Core i7-14650HX at 0.2% and the Core i7-12850HX at -0.3%. These tight margins suggest both processors cluster with their direct peers in overall performance, despite divergent strengths in specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380. It scores 3995 in passmark_single_thread, 12% ahead of the Intel Core 7 251TE's 3568.

Q: How large is Intel's lead in encryption workloads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE scores 22176 in passmark_data_encryption, which is 34.6% higher than AMD's 14502.

Q: What is the difference in physical specifications?

A: The AMD chip has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel chip has 24 cores and 32 threads. Intel also has a larger L3 cache at 36 MB shared versus AMD's 16 MB shared, and a larger die size at 215 mm² compared to AMD's unrecorded die size.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 boosts to 4.90 GHz. Intel's base clock is lower at 1.40 GHz versus AMD's 3.60 GHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: AMD's avgBenchmarkScore is 48171, while Intel's is 41650. AMD's average is higher by approximately 15.6%.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 ranks in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 251TE ranks in the 88th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger choice for multi-threaded, parallel workloads that scale with core count. Its 24 cores and 32 threads provide a substantial foundation for integer math, where it leads by 36.5%, and floating-point math, where it leads by 38%. The 42.2% advantage in physics simulations and the 19.2% lead in multithreaded Passmark scores reinforce this pattern. Data compression and encryption, both heavily parallel tasks, show Intel ahead by 12.2% and 34.6% respectively. Random string sorting, another parallel operation, favors Intel by 21.4%. For users running rendering, scientific computation, database operations, or any workload that can utilize many cores simultaneously, the data consistently points to Intel.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 wins where single-core efficiency and instruction-level throughput matter. Its 12% lead in passmark_single_thread indicates faster per-core execution, which benefits lightly threaded applications such as legacy software, certain game engines, and interactive workloads. The 43.4% advantage in passmark_extended_instructions is particularly notable, suggesting that workloads using AVX-512 or similar extended instruction sets will see a significant performance boost on the AMD part. The higher base clock of 3.60 GHz (versus 1.40 GHz on Intel) also supports better responsiveness in bursty, latency-sensitive tasks that do not maintain sustained multi-core utilization.

The aggregate statistics show AMD's average benchmark score is about 15.6% higher, and its 90th percentile ranking exceeds Intel's 88th. However, this overall metric does not translate to a general recommendation, because the two chips serve different workload profiles. AMD's wins are concentrated and decisive in specific areas, while Intel's wins are broad and numerous. The choice hinges on whether the target applications favor single-threaded speed or massive parallelism.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ substantially. AMD provides 6 cores and 12 threads, while Intel provides 24 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds also diverge: AMD has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while Intel has a base clock of 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The TDP figures show AMD at 55 watts and Intel at 45 watts. Socket compatibility differs, with AMD using Socket FP11 and Intel using Socket 1700. The process node differs as well: AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process from its own foundry. Intel's die size is recorded at 215 mm², while AMD's is not listed.

Cache hierarchies show both similarities and differences. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core for both. L2 cache is 1 MB per core on AMD versus 1.25 MB per core on Intel. L3 cache is 16 MB shared on AMD versus 36 MB shared on Intel. Memory support differs, with AMD using LPDDR5X and Intel supporting both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is higher on AMD at 128.0 GB/s versus Intel's 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe generations differ: AMD uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics also differ, with AMD featuring Radeon 8040S and Intel featuring UHD Graphics 770.

Market segment and release dates differ. AMD is classified as Mobile and released on 2025-01-05, while Intel is classified as Desktop and released on 2025-01-12. The production status for both is Active. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Intel has a recorded launch MSRP of $384, while AMD has no launch MSRP listed.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Strix Halo. The Intel Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename within the Core 7 generation. The architectural lineage is distinct: AMD's Zen 5 is a modern high-IPC design, while Bartlett Lake represents Intel's desktop-oriented approach.

Process technology separates the two clearly. AMD is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, while Intel uses a 10 nm process at its own foundry. This difference contributes to AMD's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and its efficiency in single-threaded tests. The smaller process node also explains AMD's 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, which exceeds Intel's 89.6 GB/s despite both using dual-channel memory buses. Intel's larger 215 mm² die size accommodates its 24 cores and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Core organization differs significantly. AMD's 6 cores with 12 threads rely on simultaneous multithreading to double thread count. Intel's 24 cores with 32 threads suggests a heterogeneous core arrangement, though the database does not specify P-core and E-core distribution. The larger L3 cache on Intel (36 MB versus 16 MB) provides more shared data capacity for many-thread workloads, which aligns with Intel's wins in integer and floating-point math. AMD's smaller L3 cache, combined with higher per-core L2 at 1 MB, favors workloads that fit within individual core caches.

The extended instructions result is the clearest architectural signal. AMD's 43.4% advantage in passmark_extended_instructions indicates that Zen 5's implementation of advanced instruction sets delivers substantially higher throughput than Intel's Bartlett Lake design. This is likely due to wider execution resources or more efficient instruction decoding, though such specifics are not in the recorded data. The single-thread win of 12% reinforces that Zen 5's core design is more efficient per clock than Bartlett Lake's, despite Intel's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Intel's clock advantage does not overcome AMD's architectural efficiency in single-threaded tasks.

The memory bandwidth difference (128.0 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s) may explain why AMD stays competitive in aggregate despite losing most head-to-head tests. Higher bandwidth helps data-intensive workloads, though the recorded benchmarks show Intel winning most of those anyway. The integrated graphics differ, with AMD's Radeon 8040S and Intel's UHD Graphics 770, but no graphics benchmarks are recorded to compare them directly. The PCIe generation difference (Gen 4 on AMD versus Gen 5 on Intel) gives Intel a potential advantage for future expansion, though again no bandwidth benchmarks are recorded.