AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between these two mobile processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 and the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H each dominate in distinct areas, with Intel winning 10 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks and AMD winning 7.

The most dramatic single-core result appears in Cinebench R23. AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 4012 points, which is 92.9% ahead of Intel's 2080 points. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The R15 single-core test tells a similar story: AMD leads by 34%, scoring 404 versus Intel's 301.5. These results indicate a substantial per-core performance advantage for the AMD design.

Multi-core results are more mixed across the different Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD wins decisively with 28424 points versus Intel's 18747, a 51.6% advantage. However, in the older R15 and R20 multi-core tests, Intel ekes out narrow wins. Intel scores 3027 in R15 multi-core versus AMD's 2865 (a 5.4% gap), and 12011 in R20 multi-core versus AMD's 11938 (a 0.6% gap). The Cinebench R23 result is the outlier, showing AMD's advantage grows under the newer workload.

PassMark results reveal Intel's strengths in specific computational tasks. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H leads by 27.1% in data encryption (26046 versus 18978), by 53.4% in finding prime numbers (337 versus 157), by 33% in floating point math (103842 versus 69580), and by 43.4% in physics (3021 versus 1711). Intel also edges out AMD in PassMark single-thread performance, scoring 4124 versus 3995, a 3.1% margin.

AMD counters in several PassMark subtests. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 leads by 14.1% in data compression (379448 versus 332508), by 15.3% in extended instructions (31442 versus 27274), by 26.3% in integer math (105056 versus 83147), and narrowly by 1.1% in random string sorting (40784 versus 40357). The PassMark multi-thread score goes to Intel, 33802 versus 32075, a 5.1% edge.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect these mixed results. AMD's average is 43326, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. Intel's average is 40967, in the 87th percentile. AMD's nearest rival by average score is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465, which is 0.2% behind, while Intel's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 440, which is 0.6% behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 4012 points, which is 92.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 2080 points in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How do the two processors compare in PassMark multi-thread performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H leads with a score of 33802, which is 5.1% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385's 32075.

Q: What is the difference in Cinebench R15 single-core scores?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 404, which is 34% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H's 301.5.

Q: Which processor has the higher PassMark data encryption score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 26046, which is 27.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385's 18978.

Q: Are there any close results between the two processors?

A: Yes, Cinebench R20 multi-core is nearly even. Intel scores 12011 versus AMD's 11938, a difference of only 0.6%. PassMark random string sorting is also close, with AMD leading by just 1.1%.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 sits in the 88th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H sits in the 87th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to a workload-dependent choice. For users prioritizing single-thread responsiveness and integer-heavy tasks, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has the edge. Its 92.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 26.3% lead in PassMark integer math are decisive. The AMD chip also shows a strong 51.6% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which suggests it handles newer rendering workloads more effectively.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H is the better option for floating-point computation, encryption, and physics simulation. Its 33% lead in floating point math, 27.1% lead in data encryption, and 43.4% lead in physics are substantial. The Intel part also wins the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, albeit by narrow margins of 5.4% and 0.6% respectively.

The overall average scores are close, with AMD at 43326 and Intel at 40967, a difference of about 5.8% in AMD's favor. However, the Intel part wins more individual benchmarks (10 versus 7), which indicates it has broader strengths across diverse tasks. The choice depends entirely on the specific application mix. For general rendering and single-thread performance, AMD is the data-backed pick. For scientific computing, encryption, and physics, Intel is the data-backed pick.

Specification Differences

The core and thread configurations differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H has 16 cores and 16 threads. This means Intel offers double the physical cores but the same thread count, indicating AMD relies on simultaneous multithreading while Intel does not.

Clock speeds also diverge. The AMD chip has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. AMD's higher base clock is notable, but the benchmark data shows that raw clock speed does not directly translate to wins in every test.

Thermal design power differs substantially. AMD is rated at 55 W, while Intel is rated at 25 W. This indicates Intel's part is designed for lower power envelopes, though the benchmark scores show it still competes effectively in many areas.

Memory support also varies. Both support LPDDR5X, but AMD uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. AMD also supports ECC memory, which Intel does not.

The PCIe interface differs. AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel offers Gen 5 with 4 lanes. This suggests different expansion capabilities, with Intel's lanes running at a newer generation but fewer in number.

Architecture Differences

The processors come from different manufacturers and use different process nodes. AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process and uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename. Intel's Core Ultra X7 358H is built on Intel's 3 nm process, uses the Panther Lake codename, and is part of the Core Ultra Series 3 generation.

Cache layouts differ considerably. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 cache per core, 3 MB of L2 cache per core, and 18 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel offers more L1 and L2 per core, but AMD offers nearly double the total L3 cache.

The integrated graphics differ. AMD uses the Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses the Arc B390. The benchmark data does not include graphics tests, so no direct comparison is possible from the recorded scores.

The sockets also differ. AMD uses the AMD Socket FP11, while Intel uses the Intel BGA 2540. The production status for both is listed as Active. AMD's release date is 2025-01-05, while Intel's is 2026-01-04. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and both have locked multipliers. The part numbers are 100-000001422 for AMD and SA4RAQ9ET for Intel.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins in single-core Cinebench tests and in the newer Cinebench R23 multi-core test. It also wins in PassMark data compression, extended instructions, integer math, and random string sorting. These results indicate AMD is better suited for tasks involving integer arithmetic, data compression, and workloads that benefit from its larger L3 cache and higher clock speeds.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core, and in PassMark data encryption, find prime numbers, floating point math, multi-thread, physics, and single-thread tests. These results indicate Intel is better suited for floating-point-heavy workloads, cryptography, physics simulations, and tasks that scale across its larger physical core count.

The win distribution is telling. Intel's wins are often by wide margins in specialized tasks, while AMD's wins include both massive margins (Cinebench R23 single-core and multi-core) and narrow margins (random string sorting). For users with mixed workloads, the Intel part wins more benchmark categories, but the AMD part wins the tests that matter most for rendering and general productivity. The data provides no single winner across all metrics, which means the choice should be guided by the specific application profile.