AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 356H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, with the AMD part taking 8 benchmark wins and the Intel part taking 7. The margins, however, are not evenly distributed. AMD’s victories tend to be large, often by double-digit percentages, while Intel’s wins are mostly narrow, single-digit edges.

The largest single delta in the entire head-to-head set is in PassMark integer math. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 148508 against Intel’s 83111, a 78.7% advantage. That is the kind of margin that defines a processor’s character in compute-heavy workloads. Similarly, PassMark data compression shows a 50.6% lead for AMD (506170 vs 336177), and extended instructions favor AMD by 46.6% (40888 vs 27898). These three results indicate that the AMD part is substantially stronger in parallel integer and data-processing tasks.

Multi-core rendering also favors AMD. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 delivers 24828 versus 18395 for the Intel part, a 35% lead. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 28.2% gap (3918 vs 3055). PassMark multithread follows the same pattern: 42912 vs 33978, a 26.3% advantage. Random string sorting also goes to AMD, 55248 vs 40990, a 34.8% margin.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, for its part, wins the single-core and floating-point contests. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, Intel scores 2040 versus AMD’s 1976, a 3.1% lead. PassMark singlethread shows 4072 vs 3967, a 2.6% edge. The single-core Cinebench R15 result is a tie at 303, which the database credits to AMD as the winner with a 0% delta.

Floating-point math is the most notable Intel win. PassMark floating point math scores 103128 for Intel versus 94666 for AMD, an 8.2% margin. That is a meaningful reversal, given AMD’s dominance in integer math. The other Intel wins are narrow: data encryption (26345 vs 26027, a 1.2% edge), find prime numbers (327 vs 323, a 1.2% edge), and physics (2895 vs 2773, a 4.2% edge).

The overall picture is that AMD dominates throughput-oriented benchmarks, while Intel holds a modest but consistent edge in single-thread and floating-point workloads. The average benchmark score reflects this: AMD’s average is 63765, while Intel’s is 41215. AMD sits in the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, Intel in the 87th.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins 8 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins 7. The AMD wins are generally by much larger margins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 148508 versus 83111 for the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, a 78.7% difference.

Q: Does the Intel processor win any single-core tests?

A: Yes. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins Cinebench R23 singlecore (2040 vs 1976, a 3.1% lead) and PassMark singlethread (4072 vs 3967, a 2.6% lead). The Cinebench R15 singlecore test is tied at 303.

Q: How do the two compare in floating-point performance?

A: Intel leads in PassMark floating point math with 103128 versus AMD’s 94666, an 8.2% advantage. This is Intel’s largest win in the head-to-head set.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores indicate?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has an average benchmark score of 63765, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H averages 41215, placing it in the 87th percentile.

Q: Are there any exact ties in the head-to-head results?

A: Yes, the Cinebench R15 singlecore test shows identical scores of 303 for both processors. The database credits AMD as the winner with a 0% delta.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger choice for multi-core throughput and integer-heavy work. Its 35% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 78.7% lead in PassMark integer math are decisive. The 26.3% advantage in PassMark multithread and 50.6% lead in data compression further confirm that this processor is built for parallel, data-intensive tasks.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H, by contrast, is the pick for workloads that favor single-thread performance and floating-point math. Its 3.1% lead in Cinebench R23 singlecore and 8.2% lead in PassMark floating point math are consistent, though smaller in absolute terms. The Intel part also wins in physics simulation, data encryption, and prime number finding, but by margins under 5%.

The average benchmark score gap, 63765 vs 41215, is large. The AMD part sits in the 93rd percentile versus the 87th for Intel. For users prioritizing raw multi-core performance, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the clear winner. For those who need the best single-thread and floating-point behavior, the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has a measurable, if modest, edge.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 356H has 16 cores and 16 threads. The AMD part has no multithreading on the Intel part, but the Intel part has more physical cores.

Base clock speeds differ significantly: the AMD part runs at 3.20 GHz, the Intel part at 1.90 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.70 GHz. The AMD processor has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel part is rated at 25 watts.

Memory support also differs. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not.

PCIe capabilities are different as well. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part uses Gen 5 with 12 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different: AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2540.

The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses Radeon 8050S, Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both are mobile processors, both are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is built on Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H uses Panther Lake architecture, also with the Panther Lake codename, on a 3 nm process by Intel. These are different design generations: AMD lists its generation as Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5), while Intel lists its generation as Ultra 7 (Panther Lake-H).

Cache layouts are quite different. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 cache per core and 2.5 MB of L2 cache per core, with only 18 MB of shared L3 cache. That gives AMD a substantial advantage in total L3, 64 MB versus 18 MB.

The core counts and threading models reflect different design philosophies. AMD uses 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading to reach 24 threads. Intel uses 16 cores without multithreading, yielding 16 threads. The AMD part’s higher base clock and larger L3 cache likely contribute to its multi-core wins. The Intel part’s smaller process node (3 nm vs 4 nm) and lower TDP (25 watts vs 55 watts) indicate a more power-conscious design.

Memory bandwidth also differs sharply: AMD’s quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration delivers 256.0 GB/s, while Intel’s dual-channel setup delivers 115.2 GB/s. That bandwidth gap helps explain AMD’s dominance in data compression and integer math, which are often memory-sensitive.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger choice for multi-core rendering, data compression, integer math, extended instruction workloads, multithreaded PassMark, and random string sorting. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 24828 versus 18395, a 35% lead. In PassMark multithread, it scores 42912 versus 33978. These results point to heavy parallel compute, video rendering, batch processing, and database-style workloads as the AMD part’s territory.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 356H wins in single-core Cinebench R23, PassMark singlethread, floating point math, physics, data encryption, and prime number finding. Its floating point math score of 103128 versus AMD’s 94666 is the largest Intel advantage. The physics score of 2895 versus 2773 suggests a slight edge in simulation and physics-based tasks. The encryption result, 26345 versus 26027, is narrow but consistent.

For workloads that involve both integer and floating-point math, the data suggests a split: AMD handles integer-heavy tasks with large margins, while Intel handles floating-point tasks with smaller but real leads. The AMD part’s higher average benchmark score (63765 vs 41215) and higher percentile (93rd vs 87th) indicate that, overall, the AMD processor is the more capable part in the database’s measurements. The Intel part, however, is not without merit: it wins in single-thread and floating-point tests and does so while operating at a lower TDP (25 watts vs 55 watts).