AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 records an average benchmark score of 75488, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 records 43326. The Intel part sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 88th percentile for the AMD part.

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

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 leads by 43.3% in PassMark multithread, scoring 56602 versus 32075. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel part scores 48945 versus 28424, a 41.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The base clocks differ as well, with the AMD part at 3.60 GHz and the Intel part at 2.50 GHz.

Q: What are the core and thread configurations?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading-style thread doubling.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. The AMD part offers more than double the memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor according to average score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745, AMD Ryzen 7 170, Intel Core Ultra 9 386H, and AMD Ryzen AI 9 465. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 8224P, AMD EPYC 4545P, AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the Arrow Lake-S codename, built on a 3 nm process at TSMC. Both are active production parts, but they target different market segments: the AMD part is mobile, the Intel part is desktop.

Core counts diverge sharply. The AMD part has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part lacks simultaneous multithreading, so its thread count equals its core count. The AMD part doubles its threads per core.

Cache hierarchies differ in structure and size. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has a larger per-core cache at each level and 4 MB more shared L3.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The AMD part uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses dual-channel DDR5 with 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The AMD part is 153.6 GB/s ahead in bandwidth, which matters for integrated graphics and memory-heavy workloads.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes, giving it newer signaling and more lanes for expansion devices.

Process node, transistor count, and die size are only recorded for the Intel part. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. No such figures are recorded for the AMD part.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 includes the Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 includes the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The AMD part's higher memory bandwidth directly supports its integrated GPU.

Sockets and release timing differ. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11 and released on 2025-01-05. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851 and released on 2024-12-31. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The database shows 17 test results, and the Intel part wins all 17. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins zero.

For multi-core rendering, the Intel part is the clear choice. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 48945 versus 28424, a 41.9% margin. PassMark multithread shows 56602 versus 32075, a 43.3% margin. Anyone running CPU-bound render workloads should favor the Intel part based on this data.

For single-core performance, the Intel part also leads. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 6909 versus 4012, a 41.9% margin. PassMark single_thread shows 4881 versus 3995, an 18.2% margin. The Intel part has the higher boost clock at 5.60 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, which aligns with these results.

The AMD part's advantages are architectural rather than benchmark-based. It has quad-channel LPDDR5X memory at 256.0 GB/s, more than double the Intel part's 102.4 GB/s. It is a mobile part with a 55 W TDP, versus the Intel part's 65 W desktop TDP. For systems where memory bandwidth and mobile packaging matter more than raw CPU throughput, the AMD part has a role.

The Intel part belongs in desktop builds where maximum CPU performance is the priority. Its 24 cores, 5.60 GHz boost, and 95th percentile standing make it the stronger processor in every measured workload. The AMD part belongs in mobile systems where its 4 nm process, quad-channel memory, and integrated Radeon 8050S graphics serve a different purpose.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 | Intel Core Ultra 9 285 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 24 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.60 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Arrow Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Arrow Lake-S |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 17,800 million |

| Die size | Not recorded | 243 mm² |

| L1 cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 32 MB shared | 36 MB shared |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

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

| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes | Gen 5, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8050S | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-12-31 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $579 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 dominates every recorded test. The smallest margin is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Intel part scores 4881 against 3995, an 18.2% lead. The largest margin is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Intel part scores 459 against 157, a 65.8% lead.

Cinebench results are consistent across versions. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Intel part scores 4933 versus 2865, a 41.9% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Intel part scores 20556 versus 11938, also a 41.9% lead. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Intel part scores 48945 versus 28424, again a 41.9% lead. The single-core versions show the same pattern: R15 singlecore has the Intel part at 696 versus 404, R20 singlecore has it at 2901 versus 1685, and R23 singlecore has it at 6909 versus 4012, each a 41.9% or 42% margin.

PassMark results show varied margins. Data compression favors the Intel part at 602121 versus 379448, a 37% lead. Data encryption favors the Intel part at 46949 versus 18978, a 59.6% lead. Extended instructions favor the Intel part at 45357 versus 31442, a 30.7% lead. Floating point math favors the Intel part at 194988 versus 69580, a 64.3% lead. Integer math favors the Intel part at 164869 versus 105056, a 36.3% lead.

The multithread and physics tests follow the same direction. PassMark multithread shows 56602 for the Intel part versus 32075 for the AMD part, a 43.3% lead. PassMark physics shows 3598 versus 1711, a 52.4% lead. Random string sorting shows 73651 versus 40784, a 44.6% lead.

The weighted average benchmark score confirms the overall picture. The Intel part averages 75488, the AMD part averages 43326. The Intel part's nearest rivals are server-class AMD EPYC parts and high-end Ryzen PRO parts, all within 0.3% of its average score. The AMD part's nearest rivals are mobile and desktop mid-range parts, all within 0.9% of its average score.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins in all compute-bound categories. Its 24 cores provide substantial multi-threaded throughput, as shown by the 41.9% Cinebench R23 multicore lead and the 43.3% PassMark multithread lead. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock drives single-core wins, including the 18.2% PassMark single_thread lead and the 41.9% Cinebench R23 singlecore lead.

Encryption and prime number workloads heavily favor the Intel part. PassMark data encryption shows a 59.6% lead, and PassMark find prime numbers shows a 65.8% lead. These are the two largest margins in the entire comparison. Floating point math also favors the Intel part by 64.3%, indicating strong execution unit throughput.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins no benchmark, but its architecture supports different use cases. Its quad-channel LPDDR5X memory at 256.0 GB/s is more than double the Intel part's 102.4 GB/s. This bandwidth benefits integrated graphics workloads, which is relevant given the Radeon 8050S. The AMD part is also a mobile processor with a 55 W TDP, compared to the Intel part's 65 W desktop TDP.

The AMD part's 8 cores and 16 threads are fewer, but its Zen 5 architecture on 4 nm gives it a compact mobile footprint. The Intel part uses 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die, built on a 3 nm process. The AMD part has no recorded transistor count or die size, but its mobile market segment and lower TDP suggest a design aimed at power-constrained systems.

For desktop users prioritizing CPU throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is the stronger choice in every recorded benchmark. For mobile system designers prioritizing memory bandwidth, integrated Radeon 8050S graphics, and lower TDP, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 offers architectural advantages that the benchmark suite does not capture. The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel part, with no measured metric where the AMD part takes the lead.