AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core Ultra X7 358H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear split between AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 and Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, with the AMD part winning 8 of 15 head-to-head tests and the Intel part taking 7. The margins, however, are far from symmetrical. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 dominates in multi-threaded and integer-heavy workloads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H counters with single-thread and floating-point advantages.

The largest single delta appears in PassMark integer math. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 148508 against 83147 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, a 78.6% advantage. This is the most decisive result in the entire comparison. Data compression also heavily favors AMD: 506170 versus 332508, a 52.2% gap. Extended instructions follow a similar pattern, with AMD at 40888 and Intel at 27274, a 49.9% difference.

Cinebench multi-core results reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 24828 versus Intel's 18747, a 32.4% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 29.4% gap, 3918 versus 3027. PassMark multi-thread confirms this direction: 42912 versus 33802, a 27% difference. Random string sorting also goes to AMD by 36.9%, with scores of 55248 and 40357.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H wins the remaining tests, but with smaller margins. PassMark single-thread shows Intel at 4124 versus AMD at 3967, a 3.8% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core goes to Intel by 5%, 2080 versus 1976. Floating-point math favors Intel by 8.8%, 103842 versus 94666. Physics simulation shows a similar 8.2% Intel advantage, 3021 versus 2773. Prime number finding is close, with Intel ahead by 4.2%, 337 versus 323.

Two tests are nearly tied. Cinebench R15 single-core shows AMD at 303 versus Intel at 301.5, a 0.5% difference. Data encryption is essentially even: Intel scores 26046 versus AMD's 26027, a 0.1% margin. These near-ties suggest that for lightly threaded legacy workloads, either processor delivers comparable results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 establishes its dominance in throughput-oriented scenarios. The 78.6% integer math advantage and 52.2% data compression lead point to workloads involving encryption keys, compression algorithms, database operations, and general-purpose compute. Extended instructions at 49.9% ahead indicate strong SIMD and vector processing capability. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench, with leads of 29.4% and 32.4%, confirms that heavily threaded creative workloads such as 3D scene rendering and video encoding will favor AMD.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H claims the single-thread crown. A 3.8% PassMark single-thread lead and a 5% Cinebench R23 single-core edge suggest better responsiveness in applications that rely on one or two fast cores. Floating-point math at 8.8% ahead indicates an edge in scientific simulation, physics calculations, and other precision-heavy tasks. Physics scores at 8.2% higher reinforce this. Prime number finding, a classic integer-heavy but single-thread-limited test, goes to Intel by 4.2%, hinting that the Intel part's single-core efficiency can overcome AMD's raw integer throughput in serial workloads.

For users running mixed workloads, the AMD part's 8 versus 7 win count undersells its overall lead. The average benchmark score tells a clearer story: AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 averages 63765 across its benchmark suite, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H averages 40967. That is a substantial overall gap. The AMD part sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while Intel sits at the 87th.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 24828 versus 18747 for the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, a 32.4% lead. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar 29.4% advantage.

Q: Is the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H faster in any meaningful way?

A: Yes, in single-thread and floating-point tasks. The Intel part leads by 3.8% in PassMark single-thread, 5% in Cinebench R23 single-core, 8.8% in floating-point math, and 8.2% in physics. These are moderate but consistent wins.

Q: How do the two compare in data encryption?

A: They are effectively tied. The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H scores 26046 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 26027, a difference of only 0.1%. Neither processor shows a meaningful advantage in this test.

Q: What does the PassMark integer math result indicate?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 delivers a 78.6% higher score, 148508 versus 83147. This indicates a very large advantage in integer-heavy operations such as hashing, sorting, and general arithmetic processing.

Q: Which processor has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H sits at the 87th. The average benchmark score for AMD is 63765, compared to 40967 for Intel.

Q: Are there any tests where the Intel part wins by a double-digit margin?

A: No. The largest Intel win is 8.8% in floating-point math. All other Intel victories are below 8.2%. AMD, by contrast, has four wins above 27% and one above 78%.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in core configuration. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 packs 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H offers 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The clock speeds also differ: AMD runs a 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, while Intel runs a lower 1.90 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. Despite the higher core count, Intel's lack of threads and lower clocks explain its multi-core deficit.

Power envelopes show a major gap. The AMD part has a 55 W TDP, while the Intel part is rated at 25 W. This difference likely contributes to the AMD part's higher sustained multi-core performance, though it also implies different thermal and battery characteristics in mobile systems.

Memory architecture differs substantially. Both support LPDDR5X, but AMD uses a quad-channel interface with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses dual-channel with 153.6 GB/s. AMD also supports ECC memory; Intel does not. PCIe connectivity goes in opposite directions: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, Intel provides Gen 5 with only 4 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ as well. AMD pairs the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 with a Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses an Arc B390. Both parts are locked (multiplierUnlocked is false), so overclocking is not part of the equation. The AMD part uses socket FP11, Intel uses BGA 2540, meaning they are not interchangeable in any system.

Architecture Differences

The manufacturing processes come from different foundries. AMD uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while Intel uses a 3 nm process from its own foundry. The AMD architecture is Zen 5, under the codename Strix Halo. The Intel architecture is listed as Core Ultra Series 3, codename Panther Lake, under the Panther Lake-H generation.

Cache layouts reveal different design philosophies. AMD provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a large 64 MB shared L3 cache. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. AMD's larger shared cache likely helps its multi-core scaling and data-heavy workloads, while Intel's per-core L1 and L2 allocations support its single-thread performance.

Release timing also differs. The AMD part entered production status as active with a release date of 2025-01-05. The Intel part was released on 2026-01-04, a full year later. Both are currently active in production, but the AMD part has had longer market presence.

The Intel part belongs to the Core Ultra Series 3 generation, while AMD's generation is described as "Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5)". Intel's process node advantage (3 nm versus 4 nm) does not translate into a performance lead in the recorded benchmarks, suggesting that architectural efficiency and thread count matter more than the lithography node alone.

The Verdict

The benchmark data gives a clear answer for multi-threaded productivity: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger processor. Its 32.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 27% lead in PassMark multi-thread, and 78.6% lead in integer math make it the obvious choice for rendering, compilation, data processing, and any workload that scales across cores. The 24 threads versus 16 threads, combined with 64 MB of L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, provide the structural foundation for these wins.

The Intel Core Ultra X7 358H, however, wins the efficiency and single-thread battle. Its 25 W TDP is less than half of AMD's 55 W, yet it still manages a 3.8% single-thread lead and an 8.8% floating-point edge. For thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermals are constraints, the Intel part delivers competitive per-core performance while drawing significantly less power. The 3 nm process from Intel likely contributes to this efficiency.

Users who need raw throughput, especially in integer and compression workloads, should select the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. Users who prioritize single-thread response, floating-point simulation, or power-limited operation should consider the Intel Core Ultra X7 358H. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a workload-based choice. The AMD part's 93rd percentile ranking versus Intel's 87th shows overall superiority, but the Intel part's specific wins in physics and floating-point math indicate it is not without purpose.