AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 366H Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 records an average benchmark score of 48171, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 41263. The AMD part sits at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, whereas the Intel part is at the 87th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-threaded workloads?

A: In the PassMark multithread test, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 33429 against 24244 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380, a 27.5% advantage for Intel. The Intel chip also wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two mobile processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses Intel's 3 nm process node.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 boosts to 4.90 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H's 4.80 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the two compare in single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H leads narrowly in PassMark single-thread with a score of 4043 versus 3995 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380, a 1.2% difference.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, part of the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, built on a 4 nm TSMC process. The cache layout includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The processor supports LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus with 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth. It also includes ECC memory support and uses AMD Socket FP11. The integrated graphics are the Radeon 8040S, and PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3, using the Panther Lake architecture under the Panther Lake-H generation. This chip provides 16 cores and 16 threads, built on Intel's 3 nm process. Cache resources consist of 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC is not supported. The socket is Intel BGA 2540, and the integrated graphics are Intel Xe3 Graphics. PCIe connectivity is Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only).

The core count difference is substantial: 16 cores versus 6. The Intel chip also has a larger L3 cache (18 MB versus 16 MB) and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches. However, the AMD part has higher raw memory bandwidth at 128.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s. The AMD processor's base clock is 3.60 GHz against 2.00 GHz for Intel, but the boost clocks are close at 4.90 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. The AMD chip carries a 55 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 25 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 11 head-to-head PassMark tests, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins all of them. The largest margin appears in floating-point math, where Intel scores 103615 versus 53084 for AMD, a 48.8% difference. This indicates a major advantage in workloads that rely on heavy floating-point calculations.

The find prime numbers test shows the second-largest gap. Intel scores 326 against AMD's 75, a 77% deficit for the AMD part. This test often stresses integer throughput and branch handling, where the higher core count of the Intel chip proves decisive.

Physics simulation also favors Intel heavily. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H scores 2880, which is 61.1% ahead of AMD's 1120. This result aligns with the multithread score, where Intel leads by 27.5% (33429 versus 24244).

Data encryption shows a 43.9% advantage for Intel (25845 versus 14502). Data compression is closer but still Intel-favored: 327455 versus 293595, a 10.3% gap. Random string sorting gives Intel a 21.8% lead (39814 versus 31153).

Integer math is the tightest multi-core test. Intel scores 83695 against AMD's 79789, a modest 4.7% edge. Extended instructions show a 9.5% Intel advantage (26901 versus 24333). The single-thread tests are nearly identical: Intel leads by only 1.2% with 4043 versus 3995.

The data shows a consistent pattern. Intel wins every workload category, with the largest margins in tests that scale with core count and parallel throughput. The AMD chip's higher boost clock and memory bandwidth do not translate into wins in any recorded benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 uses 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively.

The AMD part has a 55 W TDP, the Intel part a 25 W TDP. Socket types differ: AMD Socket FP11 versus Intel BGA 2540. Architecture names differ as noted, with Zen 5 against Panther Lake. Process nodes are 4 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel). L1 cache per core is 80 KB for AMD and 192 KB for Intel. L2 per core is 1 MB versus 2.5 MB. Shared L3 is 16 MB versus 18 MB.

Memory support differs: AMD lists only LPDDR5X, while Intel lists both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bandwidth is 128.0 GB/s for AMD and 115.2 GB/s for Intel. ECC support is present on AMD only. PCIe generations differ: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for AMD, Gen 5 with 12 lanes for Intel. Integrated graphics are Radeon 8040S versus Intel Xe3 Graphics. Release dates are 2025-01-05 for AMD and 2026-01-04 for Intel. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear winner in overall performance. The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H outperforms the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 in all 11 recorded head-to-head tests. The average benchmark score difference is significant: Intel's 41263 versus AMD's 48171, but this average includes different test sets, so the head-to-head comparison is more meaningful. In those direct comparisons, Intel's smallest win is 1.2% in single-thread, and its largest win is 77% in find prime numbers.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 does hold advantages in specific specifications. It offers higher memory bandwidth (128.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s), ECC support, a higher boost clock (4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz), and a higher TDP envelope (55 W versus 25 W). However, these specification advantages do not produce any benchmark victories in the recorded data.

For users who prioritize raw multi-threaded throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H is the clear choice based on the data. It delivers a 27.5% lead in multithread performance and dominates in physics simulation and floating-point math. The AMD chip's higher base clock and memory bandwidth may help in some real-world scenarios, but the benchmark suite does not reflect that.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 7 366H wins every single benchmark category in the head-to-head data. The most decisive wins come in prime number finding (77% ahead), physics simulation (61.1% ahead), and floating-point math (48.8% ahead). These results point to workloads that are heavily parallel and compute-intensive, such as scientific computing, financial modeling, and simulation tasks.

The Intel chip also wins in data encryption (43.9% ahead) and multithread workloads (27.5% ahead), making it the stronger option for content creation, video encoding, and other tasks that scale with core count. Even in random string sorting, a test that can favor memory subsystems, Intel leads by 21.8%.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 does not record a single benchmark win. Its closest performance comes in single-thread tests, where it trails by only 1.2%. In integer math, the gap narrows to 4.7%. For users who need ECC memory support, the AMD chip is the only option between the two. For users who need the absolute highest memory bandwidth, AMD's 128.0 GB/s specification exceeds Intel's 115.2 GB/s. But for any measured performance metric in the database, the Intel Core Ultra 7 366H takes the win.

The data indicates that Intel's 16-core design with its larger cache hierarchy provides a substantial throughput advantage. The AMD chip's 6-core, 12-thread configuration, despite its higher clocks, cannot overcome the core count deficit in parallel workloads. The 55 W TDP of the AMD part also suggests higher power draw, while the Intel chip delivers superior results from a 25 W envelope.