AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 vs Intel Core 3 201E Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous hierarchy between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking 15 wins out of 15 comparisons. The Intel Core 3 201E does not manage a single victory in any test, whether that test targets single-threaded performance, multi-threaded workloads, or specialized instruction sets.

The AMD processor sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 80,762. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 638 at 80,723 (a 0% delta), the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80,671 (0.1% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX at 81,103 (0.4% lower). This places the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 in serious workstation-class territory, despite its mobile market segment designation.

The Intel Core 3 201E, by contrast, sits in the 73rd percentile with an average benchmark score of 19,056. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7535HS at 19,047 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-12400F at 19,039 (0.1% higher), and the Intel Core i5-1335U at 18,982 (0.4% higher). The Core 3 201E is a mainstream desktop part, and its data reflects that positioning.

The verdict is straightforward: the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the processor to select for any workload where computational throughput matters, and its margin of victory is not subtle. The data shows a 312.8% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, a 178% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and a 398.2% advantage in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The Intel part is only competitive in relative terms on single-threaded workloads, where its 13.1% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core and 17.1% deficit in PassMark single-thread still leave it behind, but by a far narrower margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It presents 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Intel Core 3 201E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel, with 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 3.60 GHz, and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, but its L3 cache is 64 MB shared across all cores. The Intel part matches the 80 KB L1 per core allocation, but uses 1.25 MB of L2 per core and only 12 MB of shared L3. The L3 difference alone, 64 MB versus 12 MB, explains part of the multi-threaded performance gap in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with a maximum memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. That is a 3.3x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, and the recorded data shows workloads like PassMark data compression, which is often bandwidth-sensitive, delivering a 289.5% advantage for the AMD part.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. Both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics are not comparable in scope: the AMD part carries a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel part carries UHD Graphics 730. The AMD processor targets the mobile market segment with a 55 W TDP and uses the AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part targets the desktop segment with a 60 W TDP on Intel Socket 1700.

The die size of the Intel part is recorded at 163 mm², while the AMD die size is not listed in the database. The AMD processor was released on January 5, 2025, and the Intel processor on January 12, 2025, a gap of only seven days.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 3 201E has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the L3 cache difference?

A: The AMD processor has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the single-threaded performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the AMD processor scores 2012.5 against 1780 for the Intel part, a 13.1% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the AMD part scores 4078 against 3482, a 17.1% advantage.

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

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the AMD processor scores 284 against 57, a 398.2% advantage.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 and the Intel Core 3 201E have the multiplier locked.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. Core count: 16 versus 4. Thread count: 32 versus 8. Base clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. Boost clock: 5.10 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 55 W versus 60 W. Socket: AMD Socket FP11 versus Intel Socket 1700. Architecture: Zen 5 versus not listed. Codename: Strix Halo versus Bartlett Lake. Process node: 4 nm versus 10 nm. Foundry: TSMC versus Intel.

Cache: L2 is 1 MB per core on the AMD part versus 1.25 MB per core on the Intel part. L3 is 64 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. Memory support: LPDDR5X versus DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bus: quad-channel versus dual-channel. Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus 76.8 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 8060S versus UHD Graphics 730. Market segment: mobile versus desktop. Release date: January 5, 2025 versus January 12, 2025. The Intel part has a recorded die size of 163 mm²; the AMD die size is not recorded. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $134; the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

Both processors support ECC memory, both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins all 15. The margins vary widely by workload type, and that variation is informative.

Multi-threaded rendering tests show the largest absolute gaps. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the AMD part scores 5247 against 1271 for Intel, a 312.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the AMD part scores 35,061 against 12,613, a 178% advantage. The R15 gap is larger in percentage terms because the test is shorter and may not scale with the same efficiency, but both results point to the same conclusion: the 16-core AMD part overwhelms the 4-core Intel part in threaded rendering.

Single-threaded tests narrow the gap considerably. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 306 against 179, a 70.9% advantage for AMD. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2012.5 against 1780, a 13.1% advantage. PassMark single-thread shows 4078 against 3482, a 17.1% advantage. The R15 single-core margin is unusually large relative to the other single-thread tests, which suggests the older test is more sensitive to the higher boost clock and wider architecture of the AMD part. The R23 and PassMark results are more representative of modern single-threaded performance, and they show a moderate but consistent AMD lead.

PassMark specialized workloads reveal where the architectural gap compounds. Data compression: 639,356 against 164,160, a 289.5% advantage. Data encryption: 32,840 against 8,931, a 267.7% advantage. Extended instructions: 52,067 against 11,035, a 371.8% advantage. Floating point math: 120,533 against 33,260, a 262.4% advantage. Integer math: 190,720 against 43,894, a 334.5% advantage. Random string sorting: 70,150 against 17,783, a 294.5% advantage. Find prime numbers: 284 against 57, a 398.2% advantage. Physics: 3,189 against 1,141, a 179.5% advantage. Multithread: 51,502 against 14,839, a 247.1% advantage.

The prime number test shows the largest proportional gap at 398.2%. This test is highly sensitive to core count and memory latency, and the AMD part's 16 cores, 64 MB L3, and quad-channel memory combine to produce a result that is nearly five times the Intel score.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the size of its lead rather than by any Intel victory.

The AMD processor is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 35,061 against 12,613 places it in a different performance class, and the 247.1% advantage in PassMark multithread confirms that thread-heavy applications will see dramatic gains. Workloads involving data compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets benefit the most, with leads ranging from 267.7% to 371.8%. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the resources these workloads need.

The AMD processor also wins in single-threaded performance, but by a smaller margin. The 13.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 17.1% lead in PassMark single-thread mean that lightly threaded applications will still favor the AMD part, but the difference is not transformative. For users whose workloads are purely single-threaded, the Intel Core 3 201E is not the winner, but the gap is tolerable.

The Intel Core 3 201E has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its use case is defined by what the database does not measure: it is a desktop part with a lower TDP of 60 W, a smaller die at 163 mm², and a launch MSRP of $134. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory, which may be relevant for systems with existing memory inventory. Its Gen 5 PCIe connectivity offers newer signaling standards. The data does not show any performance scenario where the Intel part leads, so the practical recommendation is that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the superior processor across all measured workloads, with the Intel part serving only as a lower-cost, lower-core-count alternative for workloads that do not require the AMD part's throughput.