AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits sharply between AMD’s 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 mobile processor and Intel’s 18-core, 18-thread Arrow Lake Refresh desktop part. AMD takes the multi-threaded rendering tests decisively, while Intel counters with single-thread performance and specific math workloads.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, AMD scores 35,061 against Intel’s 30,867, a 13.6% advantage. The older Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: AMD’s 5,247 beats Intel’s 4,640 by 13.1%. These are the largest multi-core gaps in the head-to-head table, indicating that AMD’s simultaneous multithreading (32 threads versus 18) provides a substantial edge in heavily parallel rendering workloads.

Intel’s single-core results are consistently ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, Intel records 2,261 versus AMD’s 2,012.5, an 11% lead. Cinebench R15 single-core shows Intel at 328 versus AMD’s 306, a 6.7% margin. The PassMark single-thread test widens the gap further: Intel scores 4,757, AMD scores 4,078, a 14.3% difference. This confirms that Intel’s higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 5.10 GHz) and newer process node translate directly into faster single-thread execution.

The PassMark integer math test delivers AMD’s largest victory. AMD scores 190,720 against Intel’s 125,091, a 52.5% lead. This is the single biggest delta in either direction. AMD’s extended instructions score also wins clearly: 52,067 versus 44,565, a 16.8% advantage. Data compression favors AMD as well, with 639,356 versus 568,721, a 12.4% margin. Random string sorting is nearly even, AMD at 70,150 and Intel at 69,090, a 1.5% edge for AMD.

Intel dominates several math workloads. Floating-point math shows Intel at 162,692 versus AMD’s 120,533, a 25.9% lead. Prime number finding is Intel’s largest win: 486 versus 284, a 41.6% advantage. Data encryption also goes to Intel: 42,144 versus 32,840, a 22.1% margin. Physics simulation favors Intel at 3,494 versus 3,189, an 8.7% gap. The PassMark multithread score is essentially tied: Intel 51,596, AMD 51,502, a 0.2% difference.

The final tally shows Intel winning 9 of the 15 head-to-head tests, with AMD taking 6. However, the magnitude of AMD’s wins varies widely. The integer math blowout and the Cinebench multi-core margins are substantial, while Intel’s wins include several very close calls (multithread at 0.2%) alongside larger single-thread and floating-point margins.

Where Each One Wins

For multi-core rendering and content creation, the data points firmly to AMD. The Cinebench R23 and R15 multi-core results, both above 13% ahead, indicate that AMD’s 32 threads provide a meaningful advantage in workloads that scale across cores. The integer math result at 52.5% ahead reinforces this pattern for integer-heavy computation. Data compression and extended instructions also favor AMD by double digits, suggesting broad strength in general-purpose parallel tasks.

Intel’s wins cluster around single-thread performance and specific math operations. The 14.3% single-thread lead in PassMark and the 11% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core indicate that Intel is the faster choice for lightly threaded applications, interactive responsiveness, and workloads that depend on one core’s speed. Floating-point math at 25.9% ahead and prime finding at 41.6% ahead show Intel’s advantage in scientific and numerical workloads that use floating-point arithmetic heavily. Data encryption at 22.1% ahead also favors Intel for security-related tasks.

The PassMark multithread score, nearly identical at 51,596 versus 51,502, suggests that for a broad mix of parallel tasks, the two processors are effectively equivalent. AMD’s higher thread count does not automatically translate into a multithread victory across all workloads, as Intel’s higher per-core efficiency compensates in many cases. The physics score, with Intel 8.7% ahead, further indicates that Intel’s architecture handles simulation-style workloads better.

The average benchmark score tells a different story. AMD’s average is 80,762, placing it in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. Intel’s average is 66,855, placing it in the 93rd percentile. This discrepancy arises because AMD’s benchmark set includes more scores in its average calculation, and the average is not simply the mean of the head-to-head tests. The nearest rivals for AMD include the Intel Xeon 638 (average 80,723, delta 0%) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (average 81,103, delta -0.4%). For Intel, the nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 4465P (average 66,925, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX (average 67,469, delta -0.9%). These figures place AMD in a higher performance tier overall, while Intel sits closer to workstation and server parts.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the superior choice for multi-threaded rendering, integer-heavy computation, and data compression. Its 13.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 52.5% lead in integer math are decisive. For workloads that rely on floating-point arithmetic, prime number calculation, or data encryption, Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus holds a clear advantage, with margins ranging from 22.1% to 41.6%.

Single-thread performance belongs to Intel. The 14.3% PassMark single-thread lead and 11% Cinebench R23 single-core lead confirm that Intel delivers faster response in lightly threaded tasks. The near-tie in PassMark multithread (0.2% delta) means that for general parallel workloads, neither processor holds a meaningful edge.

The production status and release dates differ: AMD launched on 2025-01-05 as an active mobile part, while Intel launched on 2026-03-10 as an active desktop part. AMD uses a 4 nm TSMC process, Intel uses a 3 nm TSMC process. AMD’s TDP is 55 watts, Intel’s is 125 watts. These power characteristics suggest that AMD achieves its multi-core results at a much lower power envelope, while Intel uses more power to reach its single-thread and floating-point heights.

For a mobile workstation or content-creation laptop, the data supports AMD. For a desktop system focused on single-thread speed, floating-point math, or encryption, the data supports Intel. The choice hinges on workload mix, not on overall superiority, as the head-to-head results split 9 wins for Intel and 6 for AMD, with several margins too small to matter.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 scores 35,061 versus Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus’s 30,867, a 13.6% advantage for AMD.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin in either direction?

A: AMD’s PassMark integer math score of 190,720 beats Intel’s 125,091 by 52.5%, the largest delta in the head-to-head data.

Q: How large is Intel’s single-thread lead?

A: Intel leads by 14.3% in PassMark single-thread (4,757 versus 4,078) and by 11% in Cinebench R23 single-core (2,261 versus 2,012.5).

Q: Are the two processors close in any benchmark?

A: PassMark multithread is nearly tied: Intel scores 51,596, AMD scores 51,502, a 0.2% difference. Random string sorting is also close, with AMD ahead by 1.5%.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: AMD has 16 cores and 32 threads; Intel has 18 cores and 18 threads. Intel’s higher core count is offset by its lack of simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What do the average benchmark scores show?

A: AMD’s average benchmark score is 80,762 (95th percentile), while Intel’s is 66,855 (93rd percentile). AMD’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 638 at 80,723 (0% delta), and Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 4465P at 66,925 (-0.1% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, using a 4 nm TSMC process. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The TDP is 55 watts, and it uses an AMD Socket FP11. Memory support is LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics is a Radeon 8060S. The market segment is mobile, and the multiplier is locked.

Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is built on the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, belonging to Core Ultra Series 2. It uses a 3 nm TSMC process with 17,800 million transistors and a die size of 243 mm². It has 18 cores and 18 threads, with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The cache includes 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. The TDP is 125 watts, and it uses an Intel Socket 1851. Memory support is DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported. PCIe is Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics is an Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU. The market segment is desktop, and the multiplier is unlocked.

Several structural differences drive the benchmark results. AMD’s simultaneous multithreading doubles its thread count to 32, which explains its multi-core Cinebench victories. Intel’s higher boost clock (5.30 GHz versus 5.10 GHz) and larger L1 and L2 caches per core contribute to its single-thread lead. Intel’s 3 nm process versus AMD’s 4 nm process may also factor into efficiency, though AMD’s much lower TDP (55 watts versus 125 watts) suggests AMD achieves its performance at lower power draw. Intel’s Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes offers newer connectivity, while AMD’s Gen 4 with 16 lanes is older but sufficient for many workloads. AMD’s memory bandwidth is more than double Intel’s (256.0 GB/s versus 115.2 GB/s), which may support its data-heavy workloads like compression and integer math. Intel’s launch MSRP is $199, stated once for reference.