AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data delivers a decisive verdict: Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX wins 14 of 15 benchmark comparisons, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 claiming a single victory. The margin is not subtle. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 32,612 against AMD's 24,828, a 23.9% gap. Cinebench R15 multi-core tells a similar story at 4,916 versus 3,918, a 20.3% deficit for AMD.

Single-core performance also favors Intel, though the gap narrows considerably. The 255HX posts 2,163 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,976 for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390, an 8.6% difference. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 327 against 303, a 7.3% edge. These are meaningful leads, but they are nowhere near the multi-core chasm.

The most lopsided result comes in PassMark floating-point math. Intel's 160,624 crushes AMD's 94,666, a staggering 41.1% advantage. Data encryption also shows a wide split: 39,499 versus 26,027, a 34.1% gap. Prime number finding favors Intel at 400 versus 323, a 19.2% margin. Random string sorting goes Intel's way too, 62,591 against 55,248, an 11.7% lead.

AMD's lone win is PassMark integer math, where it scores 148,508 against Intel's 127,126. That 16.8% advantage is substantial, but it is an island in a sea of Intel victories. The closest contests are PassMark extended instructions (40,888 versus 41,247, just 0.9% apart) and PassMark data compression (506,170 versus 515,143, a 1.7% gap). In both cases, Intel still comes out ahead.

PassMark multi-threaded performance shows Intel at 48,234 versus 42,912, an 11% edge. Physics tests are closer, with Intel leading 2,926 to 2,773, a 5.2% margin. Single-thread PassMark results mirror the Cinebench single-core trend: 4,562 versus 3,967, a 13% Intel advantage. The overall average benchmark score tells a compressed story: AMD's 63,765 versus Intel's 62,738, a 1.6% gap that masks the distribution of wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors take fundamentally different design paths. AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, codenamed Strix Halo. Intel's Core Ultra 7 255HX is built on Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, fabricated on a 3 nm TSMC node. Both are mobile parts, but their internal designs diverge sharply.

Core counts differ dramatically. AMD fields 12 cores and 24 threads, relying on simultaneous multithreading to double its thread count. Intel counters with 20 cores and 20 threads, opting for no SMT. This explains why Intel wins multi-threaded benchmarks despite AMD's thread advantage—raw core count matters more than threading in these tests. The base clocks reflect this design philosophy: AMD starts at 3.20 GHz, Intel at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the order, with Intel reaching 5.20 GHz versus AMD's 5.00 GHz.

Cache hierarchies tell a tale of different strategies. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, then pools a massive 64 MB of shared L3. Intel gives each core 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2, but only 30 MB of shared L3. AMD's larger L3 suggests a design tuned for data reuse across cores, while Intel's per-core allocations point toward a more distributed approach.

Memory infrastructure also diverges. AMD supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel uses DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, capping at 102.4 GB/s. That 2.5x bandwidth difference is remarkable, yet it does not translate into benchmark dominance for AMD. ECC memory is supported on AMD, not on Intel. PCIe connectivity differs too: AMD offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 20 lanes.

The transistor counts and die sizes are only specified for Intel: 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die. AMD's figures are absent from the data. Integrated graphics also differ, with AMD featuring Radeon 8050S and Intel using Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. Process nodes favor Intel at 3 nm versus AMD's 4 nm, but both come from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

Benchmark results indicate a clear performance hierarchy across most workloads. Intel's 255HX dominates in every test category except integer math. For users prioritizing floating-point calculations—scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload heavy on FPU operations—Intel's 41.1% lead in floating-point math is decisive. Data encryption workloads also strongly favor Intel, with its 34.1% advantage suggesting hardware acceleration or more efficient cryptographic instruction handling.

Multi-threaded productivity tasks align with Intel. Cinebench R23 multi-core, a proxy for 3D rendering and video encoding, shows Intel ahead by 23.9%. Data compression is closer but still favors Intel at 1.7%, meaning file archiving and compression tasks should edge toward the 255HX. Random string sorting, relevant for database operations and text processing, gives Intel an 11.7% margin.

Single-threaded responsiveness also favors Intel. Both Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests show 7-9% Intel advantages, while PassMark single-thread shows 13%. This suggests better performance in lightly threaded applications like web browsing, office suites, and legacy software that cannot utilize many cores.

AMD's 16.8% win in integer math points to specific use cases. Integer-heavy workloads—certain encryption algorithms, compression utilities, or game physics calculations—could see AMD pulling ahead. However, this is the only bright spot. Even in PassMark multi-threaded tests, Intel leads by 11%, and physics simulation favors Intel by 5.2%. The AMD part's higher memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) and larger shared L3 cache (64 MB versus 30 MB) do not overcome Intel's core count and clock speed advantages in most scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every specification field. Core counts: AMD has 12 cores and 24 threads; Intel has 20 cores and 20 threads. Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz. Boost clock: 5.00 GHz versus 5.20 GHz. Both have a 55 W TDP, but their sockets differ completely—AMD uses Socket FP11 while Intel uses BGA 2114.

Process technology: AMD is on 4 nm, Intel on 3 nm, both from TSMC. Intel's transistor count is 17,800 million on a 243 mm² die; AMD's figures are not listed. Cache configurations diverge sharply: AMD offers 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 3 MB L2 per core, and 30 MB shared L3.

Memory support: AMD uses LPDDR5X with quad-channel access and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth; Intel uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on AMD only. PCIe capabilities differ: AMD has Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel has Gen 5 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics are Radeon 8050S on AMD versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU on Intel.

Intel's multiplier is unlocked, AMD's is not. Release dates are close, with AMD on 2025-01-05 and Intel on 2025-01-12. Part numbers are 100-000001421 for AMD and SRVFG for Intel. Neither has a listed launch MSRP. Both are active mobile parts with 93rd percentile rankings among all CPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX leads by significant margins: 23.9% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (32,612 versus 24,828) and 20.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,916 versus 3,918).

Q: Does AMD's higher memory bandwidth help it win any benchmarks?

A: Despite AMD's 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus Intel's 102.4 GB/s, AMD wins only one head-to-head test: PassMark integer math, with a 16.8% advantage. Intel wins all other benchmarks, including memory-sensitive tasks like data compression.

Q: How does single-core performance compare?

A: Intel leads in all single-core tests. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2,163 versus 1,976 (8.6% gap), Cinebench R15 single-core shows 327 versus 303 (7.3% gap), and PassMark single-thread shows 4,562 versus 3,967 (13% gap).

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark floating-point math, where Intel scores 160,624 against AMD's 94,666—a 41.1% difference favoring Intel. Data encryption is second at 34.1% (39,499 versus 26,027).

Q: Do both processors have the same power draw?

A: Yes, both have a TDP of 55 W. However, their power characteristics may differ due to architecture and process node variations, with AMD on 4 nm and Intel on 3 nm.

Q: Are there any workloads where AMD's Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins?

A: The data shows one clear victory: PassMark integer math, where AMD scores 148,508 versus Intel's 127,126, a 16.8% lead. Every other benchmark in the head-to-head comparison favors Intel.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes a straightforward recommendation. The Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the faster processor across nearly every measurable workload. Its 20 physical cores and 5.20 GHz boost clock deliver decisive wins in multi-threaded rendering, floating-point math, encryption, and single-threaded tasks. The 23.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 41.1% lead in floating-point math are the kind of margins that translate into real-world performance differences.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is not without merit. Its 16.8% integer math victory and superior memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s) suggest it could excel in specific integer-heavy or bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The larger 64 MB shared L3 cache versus Intel's 30 MB may also benefit certain data-heavy applications. However, these advantages manifest in only one benchmark win out of fifteen comparisons.

For users seeking the best all-around performance, particularly in rendering, scientific computation, encryption, or general productivity, the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX is the clear choice based on the data. Its 93rd percentile ranking matches AMD's, but the head-to-head results show a dominant 14-1 win ratio. The AMD part could be considered for integer-math-focused tasks, but the evidence from this benchmark set overwhelmingly favors Intel.