AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits decisively along workload type. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins 7 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins 8, but the margins tell a clearer story than the win count. AMD’s victories are often lopsided, while Intel’s are narrower and concentrated in single-thread and math-heavy tasks.

The largest gap in the entire comparison is in PassMark integer math, where AMD scores 148508 against Intel’s 90882, a 63.4% advantage. This is the defining result for the AMD part. It indicates a massive throughput advantage in integer-heavy compute, which typically drives general application responsiveness, compilation, and database workloads. The AMD chip also dominates in data compression, scoring 506170 versus 361763, a 39.9% lead. Compression workloads are highly parallel and memory-bandwidth sensitive, and AMD’s quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a clear structural advantage over Intel’s dual-channel 153.6 GB/s setup.

Cinebench multicore results reinforce this pattern. In Cinebench R23 multicore, AMD posts 24828 against Intel’s 18911, a 31.3% lead. The R15 multicore test shows an even larger relative gap at 32.6%, with scores of 3918 and 2955 respectively. These are sustained all-core workloads, and AMD’s 12 cores with 24 threads outperform Intel’s 16 cores with 16 threads. The thread count difference matters: AMD’s simultaneous multithreading effectively doubles its logical processors, while Intel’s part runs without hyperthreading in this configuration.

PassMark multithread confirms the same trend, with AMD at 42912 and Intel at 36811, a 16.6% advantage. Extended instructions also favor AMD heavily, 40888 versus 29943, a 36.6% gap. Random string sorting, another memory-latency-sensitive test, goes to AMD at 55248 versus 44010, a 25.5% margin.

Intel’s wins are real but smaller in magnitude. The largest Intel advantage is in floating-point math, where it scores 112550 against AMD’s 94666, a 15.9% lead. This is notable because it shows Intel’s architecture handles FP-heavy code more efficiently despite having fewer logical threads. PassMark physics also goes to Intel, 3226 versus 2773, a 14% margin. Prime number finding favors Intel at 358 versus 323, a 9.8% lead. Data encryption goes to Intel at 28490 versus 26027, an 8.6% margin.

Single-thread performance is consistently Intel’s territory. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel leads 2200.5 versus 1976, a 10.2% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows a smaller gap, 309.5 versus 303, a 2.1% edge. PassMark single-thread repeats the pattern at 4280 versus 3967, a 7.3% lead. These results align with Intel’s higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus AMD’s 5.00 GHz, though the architectural efficiency of the 3 nm Panther Lake node likely contributes as well.

The overall average benchmark score places AMD far ahead: 63765 versus 44466. AMD also sits at the 93rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, while Intel sits at the 88th. AMD’s nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i9-13900KS with a delta of only 0.4%, indicating the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 performs at the level of a flagship desktop chip. Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D with a 0.2% delta, placing it in the upper-midrange desktop tier.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the stronger processor for multicore, integer-heavy, and memory-bandwidth-bound workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 24828 is 31.3% ahead of Intel’s 18911, and its PassMark integer math score is 63.4% higher. These are not marginal differences; they represent a different performance class for parallel compute.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H is the stronger processor for single-thread responsiveness and floating-point math. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 2200.5 beats AMD’s 1976 by 10.2%, and its PassMark floating-point score of 112550 exceeds AMD’s 94666 by 15.9%. The Intel part also consumes less power on paper, with a TDP of 25 watts versus AMD’s 55 watts, though the database does not record actual power draw under load.

Buyers whose workloads scale across cores, such as rendering, video encoding, data compression, or database processing, should select the AMD part based on the recorded results. Buyers whose workloads rely on single-thread speed, such as interactive applications, legacy code paths, or latency-sensitive tasks, should select the Intel part. The data does not support a universal recommendation, but it does support a clear workload-based one.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multicore performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. It leads in Cinebench R23 multicore by 31.3% (24828 versus 18911) and in Cinebench R15 multicore by 32.6% (3918 versus 2955).

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H. It leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 10.2% (2200.5 versus 1976), in Cinebench R15 single-core by 2.1% (309.5 versus 303), and in PassMark single-thread by 7.3% (4280 versus 3967).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has more physical cores at 16, but the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has more threads at 24 versus Intel’s 16. AMD achieves this through 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading.

Q: Which processor offers better memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. It uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 boosts to 5.00 GHz. Intel also has a higher base clock advantage at 2.10 GHz versus AMD’s 3.20 GHz, which is inverted: AMD has the higher base clock.

Q: Which processor has the better overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390, with an average benchmark score of 63765 versus Intel’s 44466. AMD also ranks at the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, compared with Intel’s 88th.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses 16 cores and 16 threads. AMD’s base clock is higher at 3.20 GHz, but Intel’s boost clock is higher at 5.10 GHz versus AMD’s 5.00 GHz. The power envelope differs substantially: AMD has a TDP of 55 watts, Intel has a TDP of 25 watts.

Memory configuration separates the two clearly. AMD supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. Intel also supports LPDDR5X but over a dual-channel bus with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe connectivity differs as well: AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while Intel provides Gen 5 with 4 CPU lanes.

The socket and packaging are entirely different. AMD uses Socket FP11, while Intel uses BGA 2540. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are 100-000001421 for AMD and SA4QWQ9EK for Intel. AMD’s release date is recorded as 2025-01-05, while Intel’s is 2026-01-04.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. AMD’s Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Intel’s Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, made on a 3 nm process at Intel’s own foundry. The process node advantage sits with Intel at 3 nm, but the architecture designs take different approaches to core layout and threading.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel allocates 192 KB of L1 per core and 3 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. The total cache footprint heavily favors AMD, particularly the much larger L3 pool which is critical for memory-intensive workloads.

Integrated graphics differ as well. AMD pairs with a Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses an Arc B390. The database does not record graphics benchmark scores for either part, so no performance comparison is possible from the recorded data.

The memory controllers reflect the architectural priorities. AMD’s quad-channel controller with ECC support and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth targets compute-heavy mobile workstations. Intel’s dual-channel controller without ECC at 153.6 GB/s targets lower power and simpler system integration. Both parts are marked as Active in production and target the Mobile market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins in all sustained all-core compute scenarios. Cinebench R23 multicore at 24828, Cinebench R15 multicore at 3918, and PassMark multithread at 42912 all favor AMD. The integer math result of 148508 versus 90882 is the standout, indicating dominant performance in compilation, data processing, and general-purpose integer workloads. Data compression at 506170 versus 361763 confirms the advantage in archiving, file transfer, and storage-related tasks. Extended instructions at 40888 versus 29943 point to strong SIMD and vectorized code execution. Random string sorting at 55248 versus 44010 indicates better memory subsystem performance under random access patterns.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H wins in single-thread and floating-point scenarios. Cinebench R23 single-core at 2200.5 versus 1976, R15 single-core at 309.5 versus 303, and PassMark single-thread at 4280 versus 3967 all favor Intel. The floating-point math result of 112550 versus 94666 is Intel’s largest win, suggesting better efficiency in scientific computing, physics simulation, and FP-heavy rendering pipelines. PassMark physics at 3226 versus 2773 reinforces the FP advantage, as does prime number finding at 358 versus 323. Data encryption at 28490 versus 26027 gives Intel a modest edge in security-related workloads.

The win split of 7 for AMD and 8 for Intel masks the magnitude asymmetry. AMD’s wins average roughly 30-60% margins, while Intel’s wins average around 2-16%. The single-thread tests are close enough that real-world differences may be small, but the multicore tests show a clear class separation. The AMD part’s 93rd percentile ranking versus Intel’s 88th, combined with the 63765 versus 44466 average score, places the AMD part in a higher overall performance tier.