AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core i5-14600 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-14600 and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 are remarkably close competitors in aggregate performance, separated by a mere 0.7% in average benchmark score. The data shows a near-total dead heat, with the AMD part taking 10 of 17 head-to-head tests and the Intel part taking 7, yet the individual victories often carry more weight than the overall tally.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 claims narrow but consistent wins across every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 28424 against the i5-14600's 28271, a 0.5% margin. Single-core R23 shows the same pattern: 4012 versus 3991, again a 0.5% lead. The story repeats in R20 (11938 vs 11873 multi-core, 1685 vs 1676 single-core) and R15 (2865 vs 2849 multi-core, 404 vs 402 single-core). These are sub-1% margins, but they are uniform — the AMD chip edges ahead in every rendering workload tested.

PassMark multi-thread tells the same close tale: 33441 for AMD versus 33242 for Intel, a 0.6% difference. Data compression also goes AMD's way, 399839 versus 397167, a 0.7% gap. The Ryzen part excels decisively in extended instructions, scoring 33915 against Intel's 23420 — a massive 30.9% advantage that suggests a significant ISA or microarchitecture edge in vectorized workloads. It also wins find prime numbers by 17.2% (169 vs 140).

Intel fights back with larger margins in several specific workloads. The most striking is data encryption, where the i5-14600 scores 23233 versus 19947, a 16.5% win. Physics simulation also favors Intel heavily: 2118 versus 1772, a 19.5% advantage. Floating point math goes to Intel by 13.6% (82557 vs 72648), and integer math by 4.5% (113569 vs 108717). Random string sorting is a narrow Intel win at 2.1% (42402 vs 41537). In single-threaded PassMark, Intel takes a slim 1% lead (4094 vs 4052).

The pattern is clear: AMD wins the broad rendering and multi-threaded suite by fractions, while Intel wins specialized math, encryption, and physics tests by double digits. For users whose workloads align with Cinebench-style rendering, the Ryzen part is marginally ahead. For encryption, physics simulation, or float-heavy number crunching, the i5-14600 offers substantial advantages.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-14600 has an average benchmark score of 45594, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 45260. The delta is 0.7% in Intel's favor.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 28424, edging out the Intel Core i5-14600's 28271 by 0.5%. This is consistent with the R20 result, where AMD leads 11938 to 11873.

Q: Where does the Intel chip have its biggest win?

A: The largest Intel victory is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 23233 versus AMD's 19947, a 16.5% advantage. Intel also wins physics simulation by 19.5% (2118 vs 1772).

Q: What is the AMD chip's strongest benchmark relative to Intel?

A: The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 dominates PassMark extended instructions with a score of 33915 versus Intel's 23420, a 30.9% lead. This is the largest delta in either direction across all tests.

Q: Do both processors occupy the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i5-14600 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 are in the 92nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How close are they in single-threaded performance?

A: In PassMark single-thread, Intel leads 4094 to 4052, a 1% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, AMD leads 4012 to 3991, a 0.5% margin. The results are essentially tied.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-14600 is built on the Raptor Lake architecture, a 10 nm Intel process with a die size of 257 mm². It uses a hybrid configuration of 14 cores and 20 threads, combining performance and efficiency cores. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with 8 cores and 16 threads — a more traditional homogeneous layout.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. Both share 80 KB of L1 per core, but the Intel part has 2 MB of L2 per core versus AMD's 1 MB per core. The AMD chip counters with a larger shared L3 pool of 32 MB, compared to Intel's 24 MB shared L3. This larger L3 likely contributes to the Ryzen part's strong extended instructions showing.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X exclusively, but in a quad-channel setup with a specified memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s — a figure Intel does not list. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The Intel i5-14600 offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: Intel's UHD Graphics 770 versus AMD's Radeon 8050S.

The platform targets are distinct: Intel's is a desktop part on Socket 1700, while AMD's is a mobile part on Socket FP11. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $255; no MSRP is listed for the AMD part. Clock speeds favor AMD slightly in base (3.60 GHz vs 2.70 GHz) but Intel in boost (5.20 GHz vs 5.00 GHz). The Intel part has a 65 W TDP versus AMD's 55 W.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced choice. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the pick for users running Cinebench-style rendering or multi-threaded content creation, where it wins every Cinebench test and PassMark multi-thread by 0.5-0.7%. Its 30.9% lead in extended instructions makes it the obvious choice for workloads that leverage AVX-512 or similar vectorized instruction sets. The larger 32 MB L3 cache and quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth likely underpin these wins.

The Intel Core i5-14600 is the better choice for encryption-heavy tasks, physics simulation, and floating-point math. Its 16.5% encryption win and 19.5% physics win are substantial, not marginal. Users doing scientific computing, financial modeling, or compression work may prefer the Intel part despite its lower core count. The 14-core/20-thread configuration with 2 MB L2 per core gives it an edge in integer math (4.5% lead) and random string sorting (2.1% lead).

Both chips sit in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 0.7%. The decision hinges on workload specifics, not overall capability. For balanced use, the AMD part's consistent Cinebench wins and dominant extended instructions make it the default recommendation. For specialized math and encryption workloads, the Intel part's double-digit wins are hard to ignore.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i5-14600 | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 |

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

| Cores | 14 | 8 |

| Threads | 20 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Raptor Lake-R | Strix Halo |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | Not listed |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 256.0 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon 8050S |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-01-07 | 2025-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $255 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRN44 | 100-000001422 |