AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 vs Intel Core i9-14900KS Comparison

The Intel Core i9-14900KS and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 are two very different interpretations of high-end x86 computing. The Intel part is a desktop flagship built to maximize raw clocks and legacy performance, while the AMD part is a mobile-first, power-sipping processor with a unified memory architecture. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the i9-14900KS dominates in sheer single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 carves out wins in specific math and instruction-heavy tasks. The head-to-head results show Intel winning 12 of 15 tests, but the three AMD victories hint at architectural strengths that matter for certain professional workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the Intel Core i9-14900KS comes in single-core performance. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 7199 against the AMD’s 2012.5, a massive 257.7% delta. Cinebench R15 single-core tells a similar story: Intel scores 725 versus AMD’s 306, a 136.9% advantage. This is not a close contest; the i9-14900KS’s 6.20 GHz boost clock simply overwhelms the Ryzen’s 5.10 GHz ceiling in workloads that rely on a single thread.

Multi-core rendering also favors Intel, but by a smaller margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel chip scores 50995 versus 35061 for the AMD, a 45.4% lead. The R15 multi-core test is the exception to Intel’s sweep: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 edges out a win with 5247 against Intel’s 5140, a -2% delta (meaning AMD is 2% ahead). This suggests that while Intel has superior peak multi-threaded throughput in modern test versions, the AMD chip’s 16 Zen 5 cores can hold their own in older, shorter-duration workloads.

In PassMark tests, Intel wins the majority, but the margins tell a nuanced story. The i9-14900KS leads in data compression (803368 vs 639356, +25.7%), data encryption (47717 vs 32840, +45.3%), floating point math (153975 vs 120533, +27.7%), integer math (212644 vs 190720, +11.5%), multi-thread (60012 vs 51502, +16.5%), physics (3381 vs 3189, +6%), and random string sorting (89789 vs 70150, +28%). Single-thread PassMark also goes to Intel, 4815 vs 4078, an 18.1% lead.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 secures three wins, all in PassMark sub-tests. It beats Intel in extended instructions (52067 vs 45524, a -12.6% delta favoring AMD) and find prime numbers (284 vs 244, a -14.1% delta). These are notable wins because they indicate the Zen 5 architecture’s efficiency with certain arithmetic and AVX-512-style workloads, despite the overall lower clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-14900KS is the clear choice for tasks that depend on high clock speeds and mature software optimization. The 257.7% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the superior part for legacy single-threaded applications, most older games, and any workflow that cannot scale beyond one or two threads. Its 45.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core also makes it the better pick for heavily threaded video encoding, 3D rendering, and compilation tasks that use the latest instruction sets. The consistent wins in data compression and encryption suggest it is also better suited for file archiving and disk encryption workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins in specific, math-heavy scenarios. The 14.1% lead in find prime numbers and 12.6% lead in extended instructions point to strengths in scientific computing, cryptography research, and certain simulation workloads that leverage its Zen 5 core design. Its win in Cinebench R15 multi-core, albeit narrow, suggests it can be competitive in bursty, short-duration multi-threaded tasks where its lower TDP does not cause throttle. However, the data is clear: for the vast majority of general-purpose computing, the Intel part is faster.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is stark. The Intel Core i9-14900KS is built on Intel’s 10 nm process (Raptor Lake-R) and features a hybrid design with 24 cores and 32 threads. It has a 36 MB shared L3 cache, 2 MB L2 per core, and 80 KB L1 per core. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 6.20 GHz, and it has a 150 W TDP. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no specified memory bandwidth. It uses Intel Socket 1700 and features UHD Graphics 770 integrated graphics. The chip is unlocked, meaning overclocking is possible.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is a completely different beast. Built on TSMC’s 4 nm process (Zen 5, Strix Halo), it has 16 cores and 32 threads. Its cache configuration is similar in L1 (80 KB per core) but smaller in L2 (1 MB per core) and larger in L3 (64 MB shared). Its base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz, and its TDP is just 55 W — a fraction of Intel’s. It supports only LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, with a specified memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. It uses AMD Socket FP11 and features Radeon 8060S integrated graphics. It is a mobile segment part and is not multiplier unlocked.

The process node difference (10 nm vs 4 nm) explains the massive TDP gap. The AMD chip delivers competitive multi-threaded performance in some tests while using 95 W less power. The AMD part also features a larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 36 MB), which likely contributes to its wins in extended instructions and prime number calculations. Intel’s advantage lies in raw clocks and the hybrid core design, which gives it a 24-core/32-thread configuration versus AMD’s 16-core/32-thread setup.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS is dramatically faster. It leads by 136.9% in Cinebench R15 single-core and 257.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core, with scores of 725 vs 306 and 7199 vs 2012.5, respectively.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins 3 out of 15 head-to-head tests. It beats Intel in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5247 vs 5140), PassMark extended instructions (52067 vs 45524), and PassMark find prime numbers (284 vs 244).

Q: How do their multi-threaded rendering scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel Core i9-14900KS scores 50995, which is 45.4% higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395’s 35061. However, in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the AMD part wins with 5247 versus Intel’s 5140.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Intel Core i9-14900KS has a TDP of 150 W, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a TDP of 55 W. This is a 95 W difference, making the AMD chip significantly more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which CPU has more cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a larger shared L3 cache at 64 MB, compared to 36 MB on the Intel Core i9-14900KS. Intel, however, has a larger L2 cache per core (2 MB vs 1 MB).

Q: Are these CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: Only the Intel Core i9-14900KS is multiplier unlocked. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is not unlocked.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-14900KS | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 6.20 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 150 W | 55 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Zen 5 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L2 Cache | 2 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | N/A | 256.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 770 | Radeon 8060S |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-03-13 | 2025-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $689 | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion for most users: the Intel Core i9-14900KS is the faster processor for the vast majority of tasks. It wins 12 of 15 benchmarks, including all the major rendering tests and most PassMark sub-tests. Its 45.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 257.7% lead in single-core make it the default choice for gamers, content creators, and professionals who need maximum performance in established software.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is not a weak chip, but its wins are narrow and specialized. A 14.1% lead in find prime numbers and a 12.6% lead in extended instructions are meaningful for niche scientific or cryptographic workloads, but they do not offset the broad performance deficit. Its primary advantages are architectural—a 4 nm process, 64 MB of L3 cache, and a 55 W TDP—which make it a compelling option for mobile workstations where power efficiency is paramount. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth also gives it a unique memory subsystem, but this does not translate into wins in the standard CPU benchmarks recorded here.

Given the average benchmark scores (81127 for Intel vs 80762 for AMD, a 0.5% delta), the two are close in overall ranking. But the distribution of wins matters. The Intel chip’s launch MSRP of $689 reflects its desktop flagship status, while the AMD part’s lack of a launch MSRP and mobile segment designation indicate a different target platform. If you are building a desktop PC and want the fastest single-threaded and multi-threaded performance in Cinebench, the i9-14900KS is the clear choice. If you are optimizing for a low-power mobile workstation with specific math-heavy tasks, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has its place—but the benchmark data shows it wins in fewer scenarios.