AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core 3 201TE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusual comparison: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has a full suite of benchmark results, while the Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. This means the head-to-head analysis relies entirely on the AMD processor's measured performance and the architectural specifications of both parts.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 delivers strong multi-threaded results. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28424 points, while its single-core score in the same test reaches 4012. The Cinebench R20 results show 11938 points multi-core and 1685 points single-core. Older Cinebench R15 runs produce 2865 multi-core and 404 single-core. These scores place the AMD chip in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 43326.

PassMark results for the AMD processor show substantial throughput in specialized workloads. Integer math scores 105056, floating-point math reaches 69580, and extended instructions hit 31442. Data compression scores 379448, while data encryption reaches 18978. Random string sorting completes at 40784, and find prime numbers finishes at 157. The multi-thread PassMark score is 32075, with single-thread at 3995.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 provide context for its standing. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 scores 43431 on average, a 0.2% difference from the 385. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 43210, putting the 385 0.3% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 averages 43689, which is 0.8% higher than the 385. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 averages 43704, 0.9% ahead. These deltas are small, indicating the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits in a tightly contested performance band among its closest competitors.

Because the Intel Core 3 201TE has zero recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of 0, the database shows no direct comparison points. The Intel part sits in the 50th percentile of all CPUs, but that ranking is based on no measured data, making it a placeholder rather than a verified position.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins every category where data exists. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide a clear advantage in multi-threaded workloads, as the Cinebench and PassMark multi-core scores demonstrate. The single-core scores from Cinebench R15, R20, R23, and PassMark indicate strong per-thread performance as well, which benefits lightly threaded applications like daily productivity tasks and many games.

The Intel Core 3 201TE has no benchmark wins recorded because no benchmarks were run. Its specifications suggest it is a lower-core-count desktop part with 4 cores and 8 threads, a 2.90 GHz base clock, and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. Those figures are modest compared to the AMD chip's 8 cores, 16 threads, 3.60 GHz base, and 5.00 GHz boost. The Intel processor may serve basic desktop workloads, but the database contains no measurements to confirm any performance advantage.

The AMD processor's integrated Radeon 8050S graphics outclass the Intel UHD Graphics 730 in terms of expected capability, though no graphics benchmarks are included. The AMD part targets mobile systems with quad-channel LPDDR5X memory delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part targets desktops with dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory at 76.8 GB/s. Those memory configurations favor the AMD chip heavily in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm gives the AMD part a significant density and efficiency advantage.

Both processors have 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD chip has 1 MB of L2 per core, while the Intel chip has 1.25 MB per core. L3 cache differs notably: the AMD part has 32 MB shared, while the Intel part has 12 MB shared. That 20 MB difference in last-level cache can affect performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory only, using a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5, using a dual-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The AMD memory bandwidth is more than three times the Intel figure, which matters for integrated graphics and memory-intensive computing.

PCIe support differs as well. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Intel's newer PCIe standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the AMD part's memory bandwidth advantage may compensate in many real workloads.

The AMD processor fits AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel processor fits Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part is a mobile segment product, while the Intel part is a desktop segment product. The AMD TDP is 55 watts, and the Intel TDP is 45 watts. The AMD part has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.60 GHz for Intel, and a base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

The Intel die size is recorded at 163 mm². The AMD die size and transistor count are not recorded. The Intel part's launch MSRP is $134, stated once here as launch MSRP. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 3 201TE boosts to 4.60 GHz.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 32 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 201TE has 12 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What process nodes are used by each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 3 201TE uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: Does the Intel processor have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark scores for the Intel Core 3 201TE. Its average benchmark score is recorded as 0, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 | Intel Core 3 201TE |

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

| Cores | 8 | 4 |

| Threads | 16 | 8 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Not recorded |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Bartlett Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | Not recorded | 163 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 80 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 1.25 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 32 MB shared | 12 MB shared |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8050S | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2025-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $134 |

| Part number | 100-000001422 | SRPKDQ5CK |

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear picture: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is a high-performance mobile processor with verified scores across Cinebench and PassMark suites, ranking in the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals all score within about 1% of its average benchmark score of 43326, confirming it performs in the upper tier of recorded processors.

The Intel Core 3 201TE has no recorded benchmark data. Its 50th percentile ranking is unverified, and its average benchmark score of 0 indicates no measurements exist. The specifications show a modest desktop part with 4 cores, 8 threads, a 2.90 GHz base clock, and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. Those figures suggest it targets basic desktop use, but the database cannot confirm any performance level.

For users selecting between these two, the data supports the AMD processor for any workload requiring measured performance. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with 5.00 GHz boost, 32 MB L3 cache, and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth gives it substantial headroom in multi-threaded tasks like rendering, compilation, and data processing. The single-core scores indicate strong responsiveness for everyday applications as well.

The Intel part offers a different platform position: desktop socket 1700, dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory, and PCIe Gen 5 support. Those features may appeal to builders with existing desktop infrastructure, but the absence of benchmark results means no performance claims can be verified from the database.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the only processor in this comparison with measured data, and that data is strong across every recorded test. The Intel Core 3 201TE remains an unmeasured quantity, so any purchase decision involving it relies on specifications alone rather than demonstrated performance.