AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no shared test scores for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and the Intel Core 7 251E. This absence of overlapping measurements makes a direct numerical comparison impossible. However, the AMD processor’s recorded results from Cinebench and Passmark provide a basis for understanding its performance tier, while the Intel processor’s entry shows no recorded benchmark data whatsoever.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24828 points and a single-core score of 1976 points. In Cinebench R15, it records 3918 points multi-core and 303 points single-core. These figures place the processor at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 63765.

Passmark results for the AMD part show substantial throughput in specific workloads. The multi-thread score reaches 42912, while single-thread performance sits at 3967. Integer math completes at 148508, floating point math at 94666, and extended instructions at 40888. Data compression scores 506170, data encryption 26027, and random string sorting 55248. Physics simulation records 2773, and prime number finding scores 323.

The database’s nearest rival comparisons for the AMD processor offer context for interpreting these numbers. The Intel Core i9-13900KS shows an average score of 64051, which is 0.4 percent lower than the AMD part’s 63765. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G averages 63331, putting it 0.7 percent behind. The AMD EPYC 7343 records 64202, trailing by 0.7 percent, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63173, which is 0.9 percent lower. These deltas are small, indicating that the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 clusters tightly with high-end desktop and mobile processors from both manufacturers.

The Intel Core 7 251E appears in the database with no benchmark scores, an average benchmark score of zero, and no nearest rivals listed. Its percentile ranking of 50 places it at the median of all recorded CPUs, but this percentile appears unsubstantiated in the absence of any actual test data. The database shows the processor’s specifications but offers no measured performance results to analyze.

Because the head-to-head section of the database contains no entries for these two processors, and the Intel part has no benchmarks at all, a win-loss tally cannot be produced. The AMD processor’s wins and the Intel processor’s wins both record as zero. Any conclusion about relative performance would require fabricated data, which contradicts the database’s methodology.

FAQ

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

A: Only the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has a recorded Cinebench R23 multi-core score in the database, which is 24828 points. The Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores, so no comparison is possible.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has an average benchmark score of 63765. The Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0, indicating no recorded measurements.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The database lists four nearest rivals for the AMD processor. The Intel Core i9-13900KS averages 64051, which is 0.4 percent lower. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G averages 63331, 0.7 percent lower. The AMD EPYC 7343 averages 64202, 0.7 percent lower. The Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX averages 63173, 0.9 percent lower.

Q: What percentile ranking does each processor hold?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 ranks at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 7 251E ranks at the 50th percentile.

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

A: No. The database lists no benchmark scores for the Intel Core 7 251E. Its benchmark array is empty, and its average score is 0.

Q: What Passmark single-thread score does the AMD processor record?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 records a Passmark single-thread score of 3967, listed under both “passmark_single_thread” and “passmark_singlethread” test entries.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename. It belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename under the Core 7 generation, fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. No architecture name is listed for the Intel part, only its codename and process details.

The core configurations differ substantially. The AMD processor contains 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel processor contains 24 cores and 32 threads. Despite having half the core count, the AMD part’s thread count of 24 comes close to the Intel part’s 32 threads, indicating a simultaneous multithreading design that doubles its core threads. The Intel part’s 24 cores produce 32 threads, which suggests a mix of core types where not all cores contribute two threads.

Cache hierarchies show notable divergence. Both processors list 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The AMD processor provides 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Intel processor provides 2 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs significantly: the AMD part has 64 MB shared, while the Intel part has 36 MB shared. The AMD processor’s larger shared L3 cache aligns with its integrated graphics design, which typically relies on a unified memory architecture.

Memory support also differs. The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, achieving 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, achieving 89.6 GB/s. The AMD part’s bandwidth is nearly three times higher, a direct consequence of its quad-channel configuration and the faster LPDDR5X standard.

The integrated graphics solutions are different classes. The AMD processor pairs with a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel processor uses UHD Graphics 770. The database does not provide performance metrics for either graphics unit, only their presence as integrated options.

PCIe support varies as well. The AMD processor uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The Intel processor uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation, though the lane count matches.

ECC memory support is present in both processors, listed as true for each.

Specification Differences

The base clock differs: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 runs at 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Core 7 251E runs at 2.10 GHz. The boost clock gives the Intel part an edge: the AMD processor boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel processor boosts to 5.60 GHz. This 0.60 GHz gap in boost frequency favors the Intel design, though the AMD part starts from a higher base.

Thermal design power differs by 10 watts. The AMD processor has a TDP of 55, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 65. The AMD part’s lower TDP comes from its 4 nm process and mobile-oriented design.

Sockets are incompatible. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11. The Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. These are physically different mounting systems, and neither processor fits in the other’s socket.

Process nodes differ. The AMD processor uses 4 nm from TSMC. The Intel processor uses 10 nm from Intel. The die size is available only for the Intel part, which measures 257 mm². The AMD part’s die size is not listed.

Memory bus width differs. The AMD processor uses quad-channel memory, while the Intel processor uses dual-channel. Memory bandwidth reflects this: 256.0 GB/s for AMD versus 89.6 GB/s for Intel.

The memory support types differ. AMD lists only LPDDR5X. Intel lists DDR4 and DDR5. The Intel part’s dual-channel configuration ties to lower bandwidth, while the AMD part’s LPDDR5X-only support ties to its mobile integration.

Integrated graphics differ in naming: Radeon 8050S for AMD, UHD Graphics 770 for Intel. No benchmark scores exist for either.

PCIe generation differs. AMD uses Gen 4, Intel uses Gen 5. Both provide 16 lanes from the CPU only.

Market segments differ. The AMD processor targets mobile, while the Intel processor targets desktop. This aligns with their sockets, memory types, and TDP ratings.

Release dates differ by one week. The AMD processor was released on 2025-01-05, while the Intel processor was released on 2025-01-12.

The Intel processor has a launch MSRP of $384, stated once here. The AMD processor has no launch MSRP listed.

Part numbers differ: 100-000001421 for AMD, SRQDUQ657 for Intel.

Both processors have locked multipliers, listed as false for multiplier unlocked.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins in measured benchmark performance because it is the only one of the two with recorded scores. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 24828 and single-core score of 1976 establish a baseline that the Intel Core 7 251E cannot challenge in the database, since no Intel scores exist.

The AMD part also wins on memory bandwidth. Its 256.0 GB/s quad-channel LPDDR5X implementation exceeds the Intel part’s 89.6 GB/s dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 configuration by a wide margin. For workloads that depend on memory throughput, such as data compression and encryption, the AMD processor’s Passmark scores (506170 for compression, 26027 for encryption) show strong results that benefit from this bandwidth advantage.

The AMD processor wins on process efficiency. Its 4 nm TSMC fabrication and 55 watt TDP contrast with the Intel part’s 10 nm Intel process and 65 watt TDP. The lower TDP gives the AMD part a power envelope advantage, which matters in mobile contexts where the AMD processor is positioned.

The AMD processor wins on L3 cache capacity. Its 64 MB shared L3 cache doubles the Intel part’s 36 MB shared L3. Larger shared cache benefits multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access the same data, a scenario reflected in its 42912 Passmark multi-thread score.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins on core count. Its 24 cores exceed the AMD part’s 12 cores. Even with fewer threads per core, the raw core count gives the Intel part a structural advantage in highly parallel workloads that scale linearly with cores, though no benchmark data confirms this in practice.

The Intel processor wins on boost clock. Its 5.60 GHz boost exceeds the AMD part’s 5.00 GHz. Higher single-core boost frequencies can benefit latency-sensitive tasks, though the AMD part’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz provides a different tradeoff.

The Intel processor wins on PCIe generation. Its Gen 5 support with 16 lanes offers a newer interface standard than the AMD part’s Gen 4 with 16 lanes. This matters for future expansion devices that require Gen 5 bandwidth.

The Intel processor wins on memory flexibility. Its support for both DDR4 and DDR5 gives users two memory technology options, whereas the AMD part supports only LPDDR5X. The Intel part’s dual-channel design also allows for standard DIMM modules, consistent with its desktop market segment.

The Intel processor wins on die size transparency. Its 257 mm² die size is recorded, while the AMD part’s die size is absent from the database. This specification gap does not affect performance, but it provides a physical detail that the AMD part lacks.

The AMD processor wins on market percentile. Its 93rd percentile ranking versus the Intel part’s 50th percentile indicates that, based on the database’s aggregate measurements, the AMD part sits far higher in the overall CPU distribution. The Intel part’s median percentile comes without supporting benchmark data, so this comparison carries the caveat that the Intel figure lacks recorded test results.

In practical workload terms, the AMD processor suits applications that demand high memory bandwidth and large shared cache, such as data compression, encryption, and floating point math. Its Passmark scores show strength in these areas. The Intel processor suits applications that need many cores and a high boost clock, though its lack of benchmark data leaves its actual capabilities unverified in the database.