AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 records an average benchmark score of 63765, placing it in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 360 averages 18374, which puts it in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 24828 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core 7 360 scores 13634. The AMD part leads by 82.1% in this test.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 360 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 7 360 wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4274 versus 3967 for the AMD processor, a 7.2% advantage. This result appears in both the `passmark_single_thread` and `passmark_singlethread` entries.

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 supports LPDDR5X memory through a quad-channel interface with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel Core 7 360 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X through a single-channel interface with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it does not use simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison shows a decisive overall result: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins 13 of the 15 recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Core 7 360 wins 2. The margins, however, vary widely by workload type.

The largest AMD victory appears in PassMark integer math. The AMD part scores 148508 against 34238 for Intel, a delta of 333.8%. This is the single biggest proportional gap in the entire comparison. Data compression shows a similar pattern: AMD scores 506170 versus 142877, a 254.3% lead. Extended instruction throughput also heavily favors AMD at 40888 versus 12390, a 230% difference. Random string sorting goes to AMD by 213.3% (55248 versus 17636).

Cinebench results confirm the multi-core dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, AMD scores 3918 against 1374 for Intel, a 185.2% advantage. The R23 multi-core test narrows that gap somewhat but still leaves AMD ahead by 82.1% (24828 versus 13634). PassMark multi-thread performance shows AMD at 42912 versus 15544, a 176.1% lead. Find prime numbers favors AMD by 169.2% (323 versus 120). Data encryption shows a 133.1% AMD lead (26027 versus 11164). Physics simulation goes to AMD by 128.6% (2773 versus 1213). Floating-point math gives AMD a 110.5% lead (94666 versus 44963).

Single-core performance tells a different story. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the two processors are close: AMD scores 1976 and Intel scores 1924, a 2.7% AMD edge. Cinebench R15 single-core shows AMD ahead by 57% (303 versus 193). However, the PassMark single-thread test is the one clear Intel victory. Intel scores 4274 versus AMD's 3967, a 7.2% lead for the Core 7 360.

The overall average benchmark gap is substantial. The AMD part averages 63765, while the Intel part averages 18374, a difference of roughly 3.5 times. The nearest rival data for AMD includes the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 64051 (0.4% above AMD) and the AMD EPYC 7343 at 64202 (0.7% above AMD), while the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G sits at 63331 (0.7% below) and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX at 63173 (0.9% below). The Intel Core 7 360 sits in a completely different performance tier, near the Intel Core i3-13100 at 18380 (0% delta), the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345 (0.2% below), the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318 (0.3% below), and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18302 (0.4% below).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins in every heavily threaded workload. Compression, encryption, extended instruction throughput, prime number finding, floating-point math, integer math, multi-thread PassMark, physics simulation, random string sorting, and all three Cinebench multi-core tests fall to AMD. The data indicates this processor is built for sustained parallel throughput. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with 64 MB of L3 cache aligns with the observed margins in integer math (333.8% lead) and data compression (254.3% lead). Applications that scale across many threads will see the largest benefit from the AMD part.

The Intel Core 7 360 wins the PassMark single-thread test by 7.2%. This is the only benchmark category where Intel shows a measurable advantage. The higher single-thread score of 4274 suggests that lightly threaded workloads, such as certain interactive applications or single-threaded legacy software, may run slightly faster on the Intel part. That said, the Cinebench R23 single-core result tells a more nuanced story: AMD leads there by 2.7% (1976 versus 1924). So the Intel single-thread win is specific to the PassMark workload, not a universal single-core advantage.

The Cinebench R15 single-core result complicates the picture further. AMD leads 303 versus 193, a 57% margin. This is a large gap in an older test, indicating that the AMD core design handles that particular workload substantially better. The overall pattern is clear: AMD dominates almost every measured category, with Intel taking only one specific single-threaded PassMark test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 360 uses 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz; Intel runs at 1.50 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power also diverges sharply: AMD is rated at 55 W, Intel at 15 W.

Memory support differs in type, channel count, and bandwidth. AMD supports only LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC capability. Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes (CPU only).

Cache hierarchies are different. AMD uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Intel uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics differ as well: AMD uses the Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses the Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe). Sockets differ: AMD uses AMD Socket FP11, Intel uses Intel BGA 1516. Release dates also differ: AMD launched on 2025-01-05, Intel on 2026-04-15. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $426.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo. It uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC. The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process node from Intel. The AMD part belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5) generation, while the Intel part belongs to the Core 5 (Wildcat Lake) generation.

The core designs differ fundamentally. AMD provides 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading for 24 threads, while Intel provides 6 cores without multithreading for 6 threads. This thread count disparity is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark gaps. The AMD part also carries a much larger shared L3 cache (64 MB versus 6 MB), which likely contributes to its dominance in data compression and integer math workloads.

The memory architecture is another major difference. AMD's quad-channel LPDDR5X interface delivers 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while Intel's single-channel interface delivers 59.7 GB/s. This 4.3 times bandwidth advantage aligns with the throughput-heavy benchmark results. ECC support on the AMD side adds a reliability feature that Intel lacks.

Process node differences are notable: Intel uses a 3 nm node, one step ahead of AMD's 4 nm node. Despite the smaller node, the Intel part has a much lower TDP (15 W versus 55 W), which suggests a focus on power efficiency rather than raw performance. The Intel part also has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (192 KB and 2.5 MB per core versus 80 KB and 1 MB per core), but the far smaller shared L3 cache (6 MB versus 64 MB) limits its aggregate cache capacity.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 63765, placing it near the Intel Core i9-13900KS (64051, 0.4% higher) and the AMD EPYC 7343 (64202, 0.7% higher). The Intel Core 7 360 sits in the 72nd percentile with an average score of 18374, directly comparable to the Intel Core i3-13100 (18380, 0% delta) and the Intel Core 5 330 (18345, 0.2% lower). These are different performance tiers entirely.

Buyers who need multi-threaded throughput should choose the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. The data shows leads of 333.8% in integer math, 254.3% in data compression, and 185.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth all support this conclusion.

Buyers who prioritize the specific PassMark single-thread workload should consider the Intel Core 7 360, which leads by 7.2% in that single test. The Intel part also has a 15 W TDP, which may suit power-constrained designs, and it uses a 3 nm Intel process. However, the Intel part trails in every other benchmark category, often by wide margins.

The overall verdict from the database is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger processor in 13 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, with an average score roughly 3.5 times higher than the Intel Core 7 360. The Intel part's single-thread PassMark win does not offset the multi-core gaps, which exceed 100% in most throughput tests. Users who need maximum parallel performance, large cache capacity, or high memory bandwidth should select the AMD part. Users who need the lowest power envelope and a specific single-thread PassMark advantage may find the Intel part acceptable, but the benchmark data gives them far less performance overall.