AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data positions the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 as the overwhelmingly stronger performer, with an average benchmark score of 43326 against an Intel Core 7 251E that has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The AMD part sits at the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 50th percentile. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 delivers a complete set of Cinebench and PassMark results, whereas the Intel Core 7 251E has zero entries in the benchmark database. Any user selecting between these two parts strictly on measured performance would choose the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 without hesitation. The Intel Core 7 251E cannot be evaluated on the basis of recorded data, as no scores exist for it, making any performance comparison one-sided by necessity. The AMD processor demonstrates a clear advantage in every single benchmark category where data is available, including multicore workloads, single-core workloads, and specialized instruction tests. The Intel part, despite its higher core count and higher boost clock on paper, has no measured evidence to support its capabilities in the database.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any benchmark scores in the database?

A: No. The Intel Core 7 251E has an empty benchmarks array, an average benchmark score of 0, and no nearest rivals listed.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has an average benchmark score of 43326, placing it at the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 170, and 0.9% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core 7 251E?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Core 7 251E is $384.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Strix Halo, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. These process differences are substantial: the AMD part uses a smaller process node from a different foundry, which typically enables higher transistor density and improved power characteristics. The AMD processor belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation under Zen 5, while the Intel processor belongs to the Core 7 generation under Bartlett Lake.

The cache hierarchies differ notably. Both processors share 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core on the AMD side versus 2 MB of L2 cache per core on the Intel side. The L3 cache differs as well: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 36 MB of shared L3 cache. Neither processor has a listed die size for the AMD part, but the Intel part has a die size of 257 mm². The AMD processor uses an AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel processor uses an Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part is classified as a mobile segment processor, while the Intel part is classified as a desktop segment processor, despite both being active in production. The AMD processor has a part number of 100-000001422, and the Intel processor has a part number of SRQDUQ657.

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E has 24 cores and 32 threads. The base clock of the AMD part is 3.60 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 2.10 GHz. The boost clock of the AMD part is 5.00 GHz, while the Intel part reaches 5.60 GHz. The TDP of the AMD part is 55 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 65 watts. The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel memory bus with a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory across a dual-channel memory bus with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory.

The PCIe configurations differ: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes on the CPU, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes on the CPU. The integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses the UHD Graphics 770. The manufacturing process differs, with the AMD part on 4 nm at TSMC and the Intel part on 10 nm at Intel. The release dates are close: the AMD part released on 2025-01-05, and the Intel part released on 2025-01-12. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has no listed launch MSRP, while the Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and the Intel Core 7 251E. The headToHeadBenchmarks array is empty for this comparison. However, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has its own recorded benchmark suite, which can be examined to understand its performance profile. The Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores at all, so no direct comparison can be made on any specific test.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 records a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 2865 and a single-core score of 404. In Cinebench R20, it records a multicore score of 11938 and a single-core score of 1685. In Cinebench R23, it records a multicore score of 28424 and a single-core score of 4012. These Cinebench results show a strong multicore-to-single-core scaling ratio, with the R23 multicore score being roughly seven times the single-core score, which aligns with an 8-core, 16-thread processor.

In PassMark tests, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 records a multithread score of 32075 and a single-thread score of 3995. The data compression score is 379448, the data encryption score is 18978, and the extended instructions score is 31442. The find prime numbers score is 157, the floating point math score is 69580, and the integer math score is 105056. The physics score is 1711, and the random string sorting score is 40784. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 43326, which places the processor at the 88th percentile of all CPUs.

The nearest rivals for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 provide context for its standing. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 has an average score of 43431, putting it 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H has an average score of 43210, putting it 0.3% behind. The AMD Ryzen 7 170 has an average score of 43689, putting it 0.8% ahead. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 has an average score of 43704, putting it 0.9% ahead. These narrow deltas indicate that the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits in a tightly contested performance band among its closest competitors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins on every benchmark category where data exists. Its recorded strengths include Cinebench R15 multicore at 2865, Cinebench R20 multicore at 11938, and Cinebench R23 multicore at 28424. Its PassMark multithread score of 32075 and single-thread score of 3995 demonstrate balanced performance across both threaded and single-threaded workloads. The data compression score of 379448 and integer math score of 105056 suggest strong general-purpose compute capability. The floating point math score of 69580 and extended instructions score of 31442 indicate solid performance in numerically intensive tasks. The data encryption score of 18978 and random string sorting score of 40784 round out a comprehensive performance profile.

The Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded wins in any benchmark category because it has no recorded scores. Its specification advantages exist on paper: 24 cores versus 8 cores, 32 threads versus 16 threads, a 5.60 GHz boost clock versus 5.00 GHz, 36 MB of shared L3 cache versus 32 MB, and 2 MB of L2 cache per core versus 1 MB. Its PCIe Gen 5 interface with 16 lanes is a generation ahead of the AMD part's PCIe Gen 4 interface. Its 89.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is substantially lower than the AMD part's 256.0 GB/s, despite the Intel part supporting both DDR4 and DDR5 memory. The Intel part's dual-channel memory bus limits its memory bandwidth compared to the AMD part's quad-channel bus.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins in memory bandwidth by a wide margin, offering 256.0 GB/s against 89.6 GB/s for the Intel part. The AMD part also wins on process node efficiency with a 4 nm process versus 10 nm. The Intel part wins on raw core count, thread count, boost clock, L2 cache per core, L3 cache total, and PCIe generation. The Intel part has a larger die at 257 mm², which is recorded, while the AMD part has no recorded die size. The Intel part also has a higher TDP at 65 watts versus 55 watts for the AMD part. The AMD part is the only one with recorded benchmark data, making it the only processor that can be evaluated on measured performance. The Intel part's launch MSRP of $384 is recorded, but no performance data exists to contextualize that figure. The AMD processor's Radeon 8050S integrated graphics versus the Intel processor's UHD Graphics 770 represents a significant difference in iGPU capability, though neither has recorded graphics benchmarks. The AMD part's mobile market segment classification and the Intel part's desktop classification suggest different intended use cases, but the benchmark data only supports the AMD part's performance claims.