AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core i7-14701E Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark split is heavily lopsided: AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 takes 11 wins, Intel Core i7-14701E takes 4. That alone suggests these two processors serve different workloads. The AMD part dominates every multi-threaded and throughput-oriented test in the database, while the Intel part wins exclusively in single-threaded scenarios.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core, and all seven PassMark multi-thread tests: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, find prime numbers, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting. Its largest margins come in extended instructions (120.7% ahead) and random string sorting (89.5% ahead), both of which point to workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth.

The Intel Core i7-14701E wins in Cinebench R15 single-core, Cinebench R23 single-core, and both PassMark single-thread tests. Its Cinebench R23 single-core win is decisive: 3133 versus 1976, a 36.9% margin. That is not a small edge; it is a category-defining difference. Any workload that is latency-bound, serial, or dependent on a single thread will favor the Intel chip.

The use-case split is therefore clear. The AMD part is for parallel compute, data processing, and anything that can use 24 threads and a 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory bus. The Intel part is for lightly threaded applications, legacy software, and tasks where clock speed matters more than core count. The benchmark data does not show a single test where the Intel part wins a multi-threaded workload, and it does not show a single test where the AMD part wins a single-threaded workload.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from opposite design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process from TSMC. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its thermal design power is 55 watts, and it fits the AMD Socket FP11, a mobile platform. The cache layout is 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Memory support is LPDDR5X over a quad-channel interface, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support enabled.

The Intel Core i7-14701E uses Raptor Lake architecture on the Raptor Lake-R codename, built on a 10 nm process from Intel. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. Its thermal design power is 65 watts, and it fits the Intel Socket 1700, a desktop platform. The cache layout is 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel interface, with ECC support enabled. The die size is recorded at 257 mm².

The process node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm. That alone explains much of the efficiency gap, though the AMD part also carries a larger L3 cache (64 MB versus 33 MB) and a wider memory interface (quad-channel versus dual-channel). The Intel part counters with a higher boost clock (5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz) and double the L2 per core (2 MB versus 1 MB). The PCIe generation also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part carries a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel part has UHD Graphics 770. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either chip, so the comparison must stop at the specification level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 40888 against the Intel part's 18528, a 120.7% delta. That is more than double. Extended instruction workloads often include AVX and SIMD operations, and the AMD part's wider execution resources and larger cache appear to pay off heavily here.

The second-largest margin is random string sorting: 55248 versus 29158, an 89.5% delta. Sorting is memory-bound, and the AMD part's 256.0 GB/s quad-channel LPDDR5X bandwidth gives it a structural advantage over the Intel part's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 setup. The same pattern appears in data compression: 506170 versus 282939, a 78.9% delta.

Integer math shows an 82.6% delta (148508 versus 81325), and find prime numbers shows an 83.5% delta (323 versus 176). Both are heavily parallel workloads that scale with core count and thread count. The AMD part has 12 cores and 24 threads, the Intel part has 8 cores and 16 threads, and the benchmark results reflect that 50% core advantage plus the memory bandwidth advantage.

Data encryption shows a 75.1% delta (26027 versus 14862), identical to the Cinebench R15 multi-core delta (3918 versus 2237, also 75.1%). Floating point math shows a 53% delta (94666 versus 61873). The PassMark multithread aggregate shows a 64.3% delta (42912 versus 26112). Physics shows a smaller but still decisive 15.6% delta (2773 versus 2399).

Cinebench R23 multi-core is closer: 24828 versus 22195, an 11.9% delta. That is the narrowest multi-threaded win for the AMD part, which suggests that Cinebench's rendering workload is less dependent on memory bandwidth and more dependent on raw core throughput. The AMD part still wins, but the margin is modest compared to the PassMark suite.

The Intel Core i7-14701E wins are all in single-threaded tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the biggest gap: 3133 versus 1976, a 36.9% delta in favor of Intel. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a smaller edge: 315 versus 303, a 3.8% delta. PassMark single-thread shows 4305 versus 3967, a 7.9% delta. The PassMark single-thread results are recorded twice in the database under slightly different test names (passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread), with identical values, confirming consistency.

The pattern is unambiguous: the Intel part's higher boost clock (5.40 GHz) and larger L2 per core (2 MB) give it a clear single-thread advantage, but that advantage does not translate to any multi-threaded victory. The AMD part's core count, thread count, L3 cache, and memory bandwidth dominate everywhere else.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i7-14701E has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i7-14701E wins all four single-threaded tests in the database. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score is 3133 versus 1976 for the AMD part, a 36.9% delta.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-14701E uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5, and the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is built on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core i7-14701E is built on a 10 nm process from Intel.

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 i7-14701E has 33 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and the Intel Core i7-14701E list ECC memory support as true in the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear division of labor. For any workload that can use multiple threads, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger part. It wins 11 of 15 head-to-head tests, and its margins in memory-bound and SIMD-heavy workloads are large. The PassMark extended instructions result, a 120.7% delta, is the most extreme example. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory are structural advantages that no single-threaded test can overcome.

For workloads that are strictly single-threaded, the Intel Core i7-14701E is the better choice. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3133 is 36.9% higher than the AMD part's 1976, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4305 is 7.9% higher. The higher boost clock (5.40 GHz) and larger L2 per core (2 MB) appear to be the deciding factors.

The overall percentile ranks reflect this split. The AMD part sits at the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 83rd percentile. The average benchmark score is 63765 for the AMD part and 33206 for the Intel part. The AMD part's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900KS (average score 64051, delta -0.4%) and the AMD EPYC 7343 (average score 64202, delta -0.7%). The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 6950H (average score 33201, delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 8645HS (average score 33244, delta -0.1%). The AMD part competes with high-end desktop and server chips, while the Intel part sits alongside mid-range mobile and desktop processors.

The choice depends entirely on the workload. Data processing, compression, encryption, scientific computing, and rendering favor the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. Legacy software, serial workloads, and applications that cannot use more than one or two threads favor the Intel Core i7-14701E. There is no benchmark in the database where both parts win, which makes the decision straightforward for anyone who knows their primary workload.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 | Intel Core i7-14701E |

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

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Raptor Lake-R |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | Not recorded | 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 recorded |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8050S | UHD Graphics 770 |

| Market segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2024-06-30 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | 100-000001421 | Q49FSRNJK |