AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core i7-13790F Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and Intel Core i7-13790F represent two fundamentally different approaches to high-end computing, one a mobile-first Zen 5 part and the other a desktop Raptor Lake chip. Their benchmark results reveal a clear split: the Intel part dominates sustained multi-core and single-threaded workloads, while the AMD chip shows targeted strengths in specific instruction sets and integer-heavy tasks. Below is a detailed breakdown based on available head-to-head data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Core i7-13790F wins the majority of direct comparisons, taking 12 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks. Its most decisive victories come in the Cinebench suite, where it outperforms the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 by 29.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (35404 vs 24828) and by a massive 60.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (4998 vs 1976). The single-core gap is even more pronounced in Cinebench R15, where Intel leads by 39.8% (503 vs 303). These results indicate a substantial advantage in both lightly-threaded responsiveness and heavily-threaded rendering tasks.

However, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 secures a notable win in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 3918 against Intel’s 3568, a 9.8% advantage. This is an interesting anomaly, as the newer R23 test flips the result strongly in Intel’s favor, suggesting that the AMD part’s performance scales differently across benchmark versions. In PassMark tests, Intel also leads in data compression (567473 vs 506170, a 10.8% edge), data encryption (31703 vs 26027, a 17.9% edge), floating point math (110512 vs 94666, a 14.3% edge), and integer math (151416 vs 148508, a narrow 1.9% edge). Intel’s lead in multithread (44737 vs 42912, 4.1%), physics (3017 vs 2773, 8.1%), and random string sorting (58607 vs 55248, 5.7%) rounds out its dominance.

The AMD chip’s three wins are concentrated in specialized areas. The most striking is PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 323 versus Intel’s 207, a 56% advantage. It also wins extended instructions by 17.4% (40888 vs 34828). In single-thread PassMark, Intel leads by a smaller 5.8% margin (4212 vs 3967), which is far less dramatic than the Cinebench single-core gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on entirely different foundations. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Strix Halo, and targets the mobile segment with an AMD Socket FP11. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a large 64 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The integrated Radeon 8050S graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in many scenarios, and it uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes.

The Intel Core i7-13790F, in contrast, is a desktop part from the Core 13th Gen family, built on Raptor Lake architecture using Intel’s 10 nm process (with a 257 mm² die size). It has 16 cores and 24 threads, with a lower base clock of 2.10 GHz but a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Its cache setup includes the same 80 KB L1 per core, but double the L2 at 2 MB per core, and a smaller 33 MB shared L3. Memory support is broader, covering both DDR4 and DDR5, but it uses a dual-channel bus with no listed bandwidth figure, and it lacks ECC support. There is no integrated graphics, and it uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 CPU lanes.

These differences explain the benchmark outcomes. Intel’s higher boost clock and larger core count drive its single-thread and multi-thread wins. AMD’s larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth may contribute to its wins in prime number finding and extended instructions, where cache and memory access patterns are critical. The process node disparity (4 nm vs 10 nm) also highlights AMD’s manufacturing advantage, though Intel’s architecture compensates in raw throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-13790F is the clear choice for general-purpose compute and rendering. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35404 is 29.9% higher than AMD’s 24828, making it superior for video rendering, 3D modeling, and other CPU-bound content creation. Its single-core lead in Cinebench (60.5% in R23) also makes it better for applications that rely on a few fast threads, such as legacy software or certain game engines. The PassMark data compression and encryption wins (10.8% and 17.9% respectively) further suggest it handles archival and security workloads more efficiently. The 5.20 GHz boost clock is a key factor in these victories.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins in specific computational niches. Its 56% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers indicates superior performance in integer-heavy, branch-predictive workloads, which can matter in scientific computing or cryptography. The 17.4% win in extended instructions suggests better optimization for SIMD or specialized instruction sets. For a mobile part, its 12-core/24-thread configuration with a 55W TDP and integrated Radeon 8050S graphics makes it a compelling option for thin-and-light laptops that need substantial CPU power without a discrete GPU.

In practical terms, the Intel part wins for desktop users who prioritize raw performance in mainstream benchmarks like Cinebench. The AMD part wins for mobile users who need a balance of CPU power, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics, or for those running workloads that leverage its L3 cache and memory bandwidth advantages.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i7-13790F scores 35404, which is 29.9% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390’s 24828.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, it wins PassMark find prime numbers by 56%, scoring 323 versus Intel’s 207, and also leads in PassMark extended instructions by 17.4%.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: Intel leads decisively, with a 60.5% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core (4998 vs 1976) and a 39.8% edge in Cinebench R15 single-core (503 vs 303). In PassMark single-thread, Intel’s lead is smaller at 5.8% (4212 vs 3967).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-13790F has 16 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Does the AMD part have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 features a Radeon 8050S, whereas the Intel Core i7-13790F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core i7-13790F uses dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 with no bandwidth figure listed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 | Intel Core i7-13790F |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-S |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5) | Core i7 (Raptor Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm (TSMC) | 10 nm (Intel) |

| Die Size | Not listed | 257 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 33 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2023-02-09 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $441 |

| Part Number | 100-000001421 | SRMBZ |

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy in most standard benchmarks, with Intel holding a substantial edge in Cinebench and PassMark multi-thread workloads. AMD’s wins in prime number finding and extended instructions demonstrate that architectural differences matter in specialized tasks. The Intel part’s higher boost clock and core count are decisive for most users, while the AMD mobile chip offers unique advantages in bandwidth and integrated graphics for portable systems. Both processors sit at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 63765 for AMD and 63080 for Intel, placing them within 0.7% of each other overall despite their divergent workload profiles.