AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 386H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records 15 direct comparisons between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The Intel part takes 8 wins, while the AMD part takes 7, but the margins tell a more interesting story than the raw win count.

AMD’s largest victory comes in PassMark integer math, where the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 148508 against Intel’s 87284, a 70.1% advantage. That is the single biggest gap in either direction across all tests. The AMD chip also dominates data compression, scoring 506170 versus 352365, a 43.6% lead. Extended instructions follow at 40888 versus 29138, a 40.3% margin. Random string sorting goes AMD’s way by 31.1%, with scores of 55248 and 42135.

In multi-core rendering, the AMD processor holds a clear edge. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 24828 for AMD versus 20547 for Intel, a 20.8% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core is nearly identical in percentage terms, with AMD at 3918 and Intel at 3223, a 21.6% lead. PassMark multithread also favors AMD, 42912 versus 35399, a 21.2% margin.

Intel fights back in single-threaded and floating-point workloads. The most decisive Intel win is PassMark floating point math, where Intel scores 108527 against AMD’s 94666, a 12.8% advantage. PassMark single-thread and the duplicate singlethread entry both show Intel at 4218 versus AMD’s 3967, a 6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core goes Intel’s way as well, 2071.5 versus 1976, a 4.6% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core is essentially a tie, with Intel ahead by just 0.2% (303.5 versus 303).

The remaining Intel wins are smaller but consistent. PassMark physics shows Intel at 3028 versus AMD at 2773, an 8.4% edge. Find prime numbers favors Intel, 341 versus 323, a 5.3% difference. Data encryption is close, with Intel at 27150 and AMD at 26027, a 4.1% margin.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects the overall picture: AMD’s average is 63765, while Intel’s is 43210. That is a substantial gap, driven mostly by AMD’s huge wins in integer-heavy and compression workloads. However, the head-to-head win count shows Intel holds its own in several specific areas, particularly floating point and single-thread tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger part for multi-threaded, integer-heavy, and data-processing workloads. The 70.1% lead in integer math and 43.6% lead in data compression point to clear advantages in database work, file archiving, and general productivity tasks that rely on parallel integer execution. The 40.3% edge in extended instructions suggests AMD also handles vectorized and specialized instruction sets more efficiently. For Cinebench multi-core rendering, the 20.8% to 21.6% margins mean content creators running CPU-based renders will see faster completion times on the AMD chip.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H wins where floating-point precision and single-thread response matter most. The 12.8% lead in floating point math indicates an advantage in scientific computing, physics simulations, and financial modeling that depends on FPU throughput. The 6% single-thread lead in PassMark, combined with the 4.6% edge in Cinebench R23 single-core, means Intel delivers snappier response in lightly threaded applications like everyday desktop use, legacy software, and some games that rely on one or two fast cores. The physics test result, 8.4% ahead, reinforces the floating-point strength. Data encryption also goes Intel’s way by 4.1%, which could matter for VPN software and secure file operations.

The split is not clean-cut. AMD wins multithread by 21.2%, but Intel wins physics by 8.4%. AMD wins integer math by a landslide, but Intel wins floating point by a solid margin. The practical takeaway from the recorded data is that AMD is the throughput king for mixed parallel workloads, while Intel is better for floating-point-heavy and single-thread-sensitive tasks.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 24828 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H scores 20547. AMD leads by 20.8%.

Q: Is the Intel part faster in any benchmark?

A: Yes, Intel wins 8 of the 15 head-to-head tests. The largest Intel margins are in floating point math (12.8%), single-thread PassMark (6%), and Cinebench R23 single-core (4.6%).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

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 9 386H averages 43210, placing it in the 88th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: PassMark integer math shows the largest gap. AMD scores 148508, Intel scores 87284, giving AMD a 70.1% lead.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is substantially better. It scores 506170 in PassMark data compression versus Intel’s 352365, a 43.6% advantage.

Q: Do the nearest rivals provide context for these two chips?

A: Yes. The AMD chip’s closest rival is the Intel Core i9-13900KS, which scores 64051 on average, just 0.4% above AMD. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385, which scores 43326, only 0.3% above Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. AMD uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while Intel uses 16 cores and 16 threads. That means AMD has hyperthreading or simultaneous multithreading, while Intel does not in this configuration. The base clock differs significantly: AMD runs at 3.20 GHz, Intel at 2.10 GHz. Boost clocks are closer, with AMD at 5.00 GHz and Intel at 4.90 GHz.

Thermal design power shows a major split. AMD is rated at 55 W, Intel at 25 W. The AMD chip draws more power, but it also delivers higher multi-threaded performance. The sockets are different: AMD uses Socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2540.

Memory support differs. AMD supports LPDDR5X only, while Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. AMD uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. Intel uses a dual-channel bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. AMD supports ECC memory, Intel does not. PCIe generations also differ: AMD runs Gen 4 with 16 lanes, Intel runs Gen 5 with 12 lanes.

Integrated graphics are different as well. AMD pairs with Radeon 8050S graphics, Intel with Intel Xe3 Graphics. Both are mobile parts and both are currently in active production. Release dates differ, with AMD launching on 2025-01-05 and Intel on 2026-01-04. Neither chip has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Cache layouts are distinct. AMD provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB shared L3. The AMD L3 cache is over 3.5 times larger in total, which helps explain its multi-threaded throughput advantage.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H uses the Panther Lake architecture, also the codename, built on a 3 nm process at Intel. Both are mobile processors, but they represent different design philosophies.

AMD’s 12 cores with 24 threads rely on simultaneous multithreading to extract parallel work. Intel’s 16 cores with 16 threads skip that feature entirely, relying on raw core count instead. Despite fewer cores, AMD wins multi-core benchmarks by over 20%, which indicates the Zen 5 cores plus the large 64 MB L3 cache deliver higher per-thread and per-core efficiency in parallel workloads.

Intel’s larger L1 and L2 caches per core (192 KB and 2.5 MB versus 80 KB and 1 MB) likely contribute to its single-thread and floating-point wins. The smaller 18 MB L3, however, limits how much shared data Intel can hold close to the cores. AMD’s 64 MB L3 is a major architectural advantage for workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

Memory architecture reinforces the split. AMD’s quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides more than double Intel’s 115.2 GB/s from dual-channel memory. That bandwidth advantage shows up in data compression and integer math, which are often memory-throughput limited. Intel’s dual-channel setup is sufficient for its floating-point strengths but caps its throughput in bandwidth-hungry tasks.

Process node differences also matter. Intel’s 3 nm process is slightly more advanced than AMD’s 4 nm, which helps explain Intel’s lower 25 W TDP despite having 16 cores. AMD’s 55 W TDP reflects the higher power budget needed to feed 24 threads and a 256 GB/s memory system.

The integrated graphics differ in architecture as well. AMD’s Radeon 8050S and Intel’s Xe3 Graphics are both integrated solutions, but the database does not record performance scores for either, so no direct comparison is possible from the data.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data supports a clear split based on workload type. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the choice for multi-threaded productivity, data compression, integer-heavy processing, and CPU rendering. Its 70.1% lead in integer math, 43.6% lead in data compression, and 20.8% to 21.6% leads in Cinebench multi-core make it the stronger all-around parallel processor. The 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 63765 position it near the top of the database, just 0.4% behind the Intel Core i9-13900KS.

The Intel Core Ultra 9 386H is the choice for floating-point-heavy workloads, single-thread responsiveness, and lower power operation. Its 12.8% lead in floating point math, 6% lead in single-thread PassMark, and 4.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate strengths in scientific computing, physics simulations, and everyday lightly threaded tasks. The 25 W TDP is less than half of AMD’s 55 W rating, which matters for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are priorities.

The Intel chip also wins in data encryption by 4.1% and physics by 8.4%, so it is not simply a single-core specialist. But its 8 wins out of 15 tests come mostly in narrow margins, while AMD’s 7 wins include several landslides. The average benchmark score gap, 63765 versus 43210, reflects that AMD’s wins are much larger in magnitude.

For a builder choosing between these two mobile processors, the decision depends on the primary use case. AMD delivers the higher peak throughput for demanding parallel workloads. Intel delivers better floating-point performance, stronger single-thread scores, and a much lower power envelope. The data does not indicate a universal winner, but it does show that AMD’s multi-threaded dominance is more pronounced than Intel’s single-thread and floating-point advantages.