AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

The Verdict

The data separates these two mobile processors into distinct performance tiers. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins 15 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, while the Intel Core 5 315 wins only the two Passmark single-thread tests. The AMD part delivers a 119% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28424 vs 12981), a 231.5% lead in Passmark integer math (105056 vs 31690), and a 159.6% edge in data compression (379448 vs 146143). The Intel Core 5 315 counters with a marginal 0.6% single-thread Passmark win (4021 vs 3995), which is its only recorded area of superiority. The AMD processor sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Intel part ranks at the 72nd percentile. The average benchmark score for the AMD chip is 43326, compared to 18188 for the Intel chip.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads, multi-threaded rendering, and sustained productivity tasks. The Intel Core 5 315, with its 15 W TDP versus the AMD part's 55 W TDP, fits scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint and the workload is light, single-threaded, or intermittent. The AMD part's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (0.2% lower average score), the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (0.3% higher), the AMD Ryzen 7 170 (0.8% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 (0.9% lower), confirming it competes in a high-end mobile tier. The Intel Core 5 315's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 9274F (0% delta), Intel Core i7-9700 (0% delta), Intel Core i7-1365U (0.1% higher), and AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (0.1% higher), placing it in the mid-range mobile class.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake architecture on a 3 nm Intel process, with 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD part has no simultaneous multithreading deficit; it offers 16 threads from 8 cores, while the Intel part offers only one thread per core. The AMD base clock is 3.60 GHz with a boost of 5.00 GHz. The Intel base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost of 4.40 GHz.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD L3 cache is over five times larger than the Intel L3. Memory support also diverges: the AMD processor supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel processor supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X but with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD memory bandwidth is roughly 4.3 times higher. The AMD part supports ECC memory; the Intel part does not.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD chip provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel chip provides Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics are the Radeon 8050S on the AMD side and Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) on the Intel side. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. The AMD release date is 2025-01-05, and the Intel release date is 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part. Both processors are active in production and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent and large multi-core gap. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD scores 2865 against 1308 for Intel, a 119% delta. The R15 single-core test shows the AMD at 404 against 184, a 119.6% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the AMD 11938 versus 5452, again a 119% delta. R20 single-core gives 1685 versus 769, a 119.1% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core gives 28424 versus 12981, a 119% delta, and R23 single-core gives 4012 versus 1832, a 119% delta. The consistency of the 119% range across all six Cinebench tests indicates that the AMD architecture scales uniformly across render loads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. The single-core Cinebench results are particularly notable: the AMD part leads by 119.6% in R15 and 119% in R23, despite the Intel part's higher Passmark single-thread score.

The Passmark suite reveals where the Intel part does best and where it falls furthest behind. In Passmark single-thread, the Intel scores 4021 versus 3995 for AMD, a 0.6% win. This is the only test the Intel part wins, and the margin is below 1%. The Passmark multi-thread test shows the AMD at 32075 versus 15272, a 110% lead. Data compression shows the AMD at 379448 versus 146143, a 159.6% lead. Data encryption gives the AMD 18978 versus 11119, a 70.7% lead. Extended instructions give the AMD 31442 versus 13143, a 139.2% lead. Find prime numbers gives the AMD 157 versus 112, a 40.2% lead. Floating point math gives the AMD 69580 versus 42441, a 63.9% lead. Integer math gives the AMD 105056 versus 31690, a 231.5% lead, the largest delta in the entire comparison. Physics gives the AMD 1711 versus 1163, a 47.1% lead. Random string sorting gives the AMD 40784 versus 17551, a 132.4% lead.

The largest performance gaps appear in workloads that stress memory bandwidth and parallel integer execution. Integer math at 231.5% and random string sorting at 132.4% both depend heavily on thread count and memory throughput, where the AMD's 16 threads, 32 MB L3, and quad-channel 256.0 GB/s memory subsystem dominate the Intel's 6 threads, 6 MB L3, and single-channel 59.7 GB/s configuration. The smallest AMD leads, aside from the Intel single-thread win, are find prime numbers at 40.2% and physics at 47.1%. These workloads may be more latency-sensitive or less bandwidth-bound, reducing the AMD advantage but still keeping it ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins the Passmark single-thread test with 4021 against 3995 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, a 0.6% margin. However, the AMD part wins all three Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by roughly 119% or more.

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 leads by 119% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28424 vs 12981) and by 110% in Passmark multi-thread (32075 vs 15272). The 8-core, 16-thread AMD configuration outperforms the 6-core, 6-thread Intel configuration across all recorded multi-thread benchmarks.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not.

Q: Where does the Intel Core 5 315 beat the AMD part?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 wins only the Passmark single-thread test (4021 vs 3995, a 0.6% delta). It loses all other 16 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel part also has a lower TDP of 15 W compared to 55 W for the AMD part.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the database percentile rankings?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 43326. The Intel Core 5 315 sits at the 72nd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 18188. The AMD part's nearest rivals are within about 1% of its average score, while the Intel part's nearest rivals are nearly identical in average score.

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates?

A: Both processors are listed as active in production. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has a release date of 2025-01-05. The Intel Core 5 315 has a release date of 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $340. No launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins in every recorded compute category except one. Its 16 threads and 32 MB of L3 cache give it a decisive edge in multi-threaded rendering: Cinebench R23 multi-core at 28424 versus 12981 is more than double the Intel score. The quad-channel memory bus at 256.0 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s drives large wins in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Passmark data compression shows a 159.6% lead, random string sorting shows a 132.4% lead, and integer math shows a 231.5% lead. The AMD part also leads in encryption by 70.7%, extended instructions by 139.2%, floating point math by 63.9%, physics by 47.1%, prime number finding by 40.2%, and multi-thread by 110%. For anyone running render farms, code compilation, data compression, scientific simulation, or heavy spreadsheet work, the recorded data points clearly to the AMD processor.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins in exactly one recorded benchmark category: Passmark single-thread, with 4021 versus 3995. The margin is 0.6%, which is within run-to-run variance but still a recorded win. The Intel part's 15 W TDP versus the AMD's 55 W TDP indicates a much lower power envelope, which suits thin-and-light chassis and fanless or low-noise designs. The Intel part also has a 3 nm process node from Intel, which is smaller than the AMD's 4 nm TSMC node, though the benchmark data does not translate that process advantage into performance wins. The Intel part's 6 MB of L3 cache and single-channel memory limit its performance in multi-threaded and bandwidth-heavy tasks, but for brief, single-threaded interactions such as document editing, web browsing, or lightweight scripting, the Intel chip holds a narrow edge in the Passmark single-thread metric. The Cinebench single-core results contradict that edge, however, with the AMD part leading by 119% or more in all three Cinebench single-core tests. The overall picture shows the Intel part as a low-power mobile chip for light workloads, while the AMD part is a high-performance mobile processor for demanding parallel tasks.