AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. The AMD part also has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, and a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses a 4 nm process built by TSMC, while the Intel Core 3 304 uses a 3 nm process built by Intel.

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, which is significantly smaller.

Q: What memory configurations do these chips support?

A: The AMD part supports LPDDR5X memory on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but on a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors feature integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 includes a Radeon 8060S, while the Intel Core 3 304 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe).

Q: What is the market segment and release timing for each?

A: Both are mobile processors currently in active production. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 was released on January 5, 2025, and the Intel Core 3 304 was released on April 15, 2026.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. The core configuration is 16 physical cores with simultaneous multithreading, producing 32 threads. Each core has 80 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory subsystem uses LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is supported. The CPU-only PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

The Intel Core 3 304 uses the Wildcat Lake codename with a 3 nm process from Intel. It has 5 physical cores and 5 threads, meaning no hyper-threading. The cache layout differs significantly: 192 KB of L1 cache, 2.5 MB of L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support includes DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported. The CPU-only PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The AMD processor has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel processor has a TDP of 15 watts. Socket types differ, with AMD using Socket FP11 and Intel using BGA 1516. Both have locked multipliers. The AMD part carries part number 100-000001243, while the Intel part is designated SAE3K.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show a complete sweep for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395, winning all 15 recorded tests. The margins vary from modest to overwhelming.

In single-threaded workloads, the AMD chip leads but by a smaller margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 306 versus 264, a 15.9% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2012.5 versus 1765, a 14% lead. PassMark single-thread scores are 4078 versus 3614, a 12.8% difference. These results indicate that the Zen 5 core design has a clear but not dominant edge in lightly threaded tasks.

The multicore results tell a very different story. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 5247 versus 849, a 518% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 35061 versus 5263, a 566.2% lead. PassMark multithreaded shows 51502 versus 11625, a 343% advantage. The 16-core, 32-thread AMD part simply overwhelms the 5-core, 5-thread Intel part in heavily parallel workloads.

Compute-heavy PassMark tests amplify the gap. Integer math shows 190720 versus 24640, a 674% difference, the largest margin in the dataset. Floating point math shows 120533 versus 29722, a 305.5% lead. Extended instructions show 52067 versus 9686, a 437.5% advantage. Prime number finding shows 284 versus 68, a 317.6% difference.

Memory-sensitive workloads also favor the AMD chip heavily. Data compression scores are 639356 versus 114775, a 457.1% lead. Data encryption shows 32840 versus 8501, a 286.3% advantage. Random string sorting shows 70150 versus 13659, a 413.6% difference. Physics simulation scores are 3189 versus 868, a 267.4% lead.

The average benchmark score for the AMD processor is 80762, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The Intel processor averages 13745, putting it in the 68th percentile. The AMD chip's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 638 at 80723 (0% delta), the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80671 (0.1% delta), the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX at 81103 (-0.4% delta), and the Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 81115 (-0.4% delta). The Intel Core 3 304's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX at 13786 (-0.3% delta), the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 (-0.9% delta), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594 (1.1% delta), and the AMD EPYC 7443 at 13936 (-1.4% delta).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially across nearly every specification field.

Core and thread counts: AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads; Intel has 5 cores and 5 threads.

Clock speeds: AMD base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz; Intel base clock is 1.50 GHz with a boost of 4.30 GHz.

Process node and foundry: AMD uses 4 nm from TSMC; Intel uses 3 nm from Intel.

Cache: AMD has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 64 MB shared L3; Intel has 192 KB L1, 2.5 MB L2, 6 MB shared L3.

Memory: AMD supports LPDDR5X with quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth; Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with single-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

ECC: AMD supports ECC memory; Intel does not.

PCIe: AMD has Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes; Intel has Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

Integrated graphics: AMD uses Radeon 8060S; Intel uses Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe).

TDP: AMD is rated at 55 watts; Intel is rated at 15 watts.

Socket: AMD uses AMD Socket FP11; Intel uses Intel BGA 1516.

Release date: AMD launched January 5, 2025; Intel launched April 15, 2026.

Launch MSRP: The Intel Core 3 304 has a launch MSRP of $309. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Unlocked multiplier: Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Market segment: Both are mobile processors, and both are in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins in every benchmark category recorded. The largest advantage appears in integer math, where it leads by 674%. The smallest advantage is in PassMark single-thread, at 12.8%. For users running multicore rendering, data compression, encryption, floating point workloads, or physics simulations, the AMD chip is the dominant choice. Its 16-core, 32-thread configuration with 64 MB of L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth makes it suitable for heavy parallel tasks that scale with core count and memory throughput.

The Intel Core 3 304 does not win any recorded benchmark, but its profile suggests a different use case. With a 15 watt TDP, it draws considerably less power than the 55 watt AMD part. It has a smaller physical footprint with 5 cores, and it supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory. The 3 nm process from Intel allows for a denser transistor layout. Its nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-8750H and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX, indicating it competes at a much lower performance tier.

For workloads that are lightly threaded, such as basic office applications or web browsing, the Intel chip's single-thread scores are closer to the AMD part. The 12.8% deficit in PassMark single-thread and 14% deficit in Cinebench R23 single-core are modest compared to the multicore gaps. However, even there, the AMD chip holds the advantage.

The data shows no scenario where the Intel Core 3 304 outperforms the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 in a recorded test. The choice between them depends on power constraints and system requirements rather than performance. The Intel part fits into a lower-power, lighter-duty mobile platform. The AMD part targets high-performance mobile workstations.

The Verdict

Based strictly on recorded benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the stronger processor across every measured workload. It wins all 15 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 12.8% in single-thread PassMark to 674% in integer math. Its 95th percentile ranking versus 68th percentile for the Intel part confirms a vast performance gap. The AMD chip offers 16 cores, 32 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support. It also has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

The Intel Core 3 304 is a 5-core, 5-thread processor with a 15 watt TDP, 6 MB of L3 cache, single-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and no ECC support. Its launch MSRP is $309. It performs closest to the AMD chip in single-threaded tests, where the gap narrows to roughly 13% to 16%. In all other tests, the AMD chip leads by multiples.

For a system requiring maximum compute throughput, particularly in multicore rendering, data processing, encryption, or simulation, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the clear choice. The data does not show any workload where the Intel Core 3 304 takes the lead. For a low-power mobile platform where battery life and thermal limits outweigh performance, the Intel Core 3 304 may fit, but the benchmark record shows it is not competitive with the AMD part in raw performance. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the superior processor by every measured metric.