AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 vs Intel Core 3 N355 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 and the Intel Core 3 N355?

A: Both processors feature 8 cores, but the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports 16 threads via simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel Core 3 N355 is limited to 8 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, whereas the Intel Core 3 N355 operates at 1.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory and delivers 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel Core 3 N355 uses single-channel DDR4, DDR5, or LPDDR5 memory with 38.4 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The AMD part includes a Radeon 8050S GPU, while the Intel part features UHD Graphics 770.

Q: How do the two compare in terms of process node?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 is manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the Intel Core 3 N355 uses Intel's 10 nm process.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has a TDP of 55 watts, and the Intel Core 3 N355 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 N355 is the only processor in this comparison with recorded benchmark data. It holds a percentile rank of 68 among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 13,492. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100F at 13,494 (0% delta), the Intel Core i5-9500 at 13,452 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13,594 (0.8% behind), and the Intel Core i7-1250U at 13,351 (1.1% ahead). The N355 sits within a tight performance cluster, effectively matching the Core i3-12100F and slightly trailing the Core 5 120UL.

For the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485, no benchmark scores are recorded in the database, and its percentile ranking stands at 50. The data shows no head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the two processors, and neither chip records any wins in the winsA or winsB fields. Consequently, the use-case split must be inferred from the architectural and specification differences rather than direct performance measurements.

The Intel Core 3 N355 wins in scenarios where low power consumption is paramount. Its 15-watt TDP, combined with a modest 3.90 GHz boost clock and 8 threads, suits lightweight mobile workloads such as office productivity, web browsing, and fanless or passively cooled designs. The single-channel memory interface and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth align with everyday tasks that do not demand high data throughput. The chip's 6 MB of shared L3 cache and 2 MB of shared L2 cache provide adequate buffering for such workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 wins in scenarios demanding high compute throughput and memory-intensive applications. Its 55-watt TDP and 5.00 GHz boost clock indicate a design aimed at sustained heavy lifting. The 16 threads double the logical core count, which benefits multithreaded rendering, compilation, and scientific computing. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory subsystem, delivering 273.1 GB/s, is roughly seven times the bandwidth of the Intel part, making the AMD chip markedly superior for data-heavy workloads such as large dataset manipulation, machine learning inference, and high-resolution media processing. The 32 MB of shared L3 cache further supports such tasks.

The Intel part's 10 nm node and Alder Lake-N architecture suggest an efficiency-focused design, while the AMD part's 4 nm node and Zen 5 architecture indicate a performance-oriented approach. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, which can be decisive for error-sensitive workloads like financial modeling or server-style applications, although both parts target the mobile segment.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 is built on the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation using the Zen 5 microarchitecture. It is fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process, with a die size of 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 3 N355 uses the Twin Lake codename and architecture, belonging to the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N. It is fabricated on Intel's 10 nm process.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD chip provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD configuration allocates more total L2 (8 MB across all cores versus 2 MB shared) and significantly more L3 (32 MB versus 6 MB).

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, achieving 273.1 GB/s, and includes ECC memory capability. The Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 over a single-channel bus, achieving 38.4 GB/s, with no ECC support. The PCIe interfaces also differ: the AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel chip uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics represent another major architectural split. AMD pairs the CPU with a Radeon 8050S, while Intel uses UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part's GPU is positioned for more demanding visual workloads, though no benchmark scores are available to quantify the difference.

The sockets also differ: AMD uses Socket FP11, while Intel uses BGA 1264. Both are mobile platforms, and both processors remain in active production. The AMD part has a release date of May 2026, whereas the Intel part was released in January 2025.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core counts are identical at 8, but the AMD part supports 16 threads versus 8 threads on the Intel part. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. TDP is 55 watts versus 15 watts.

The memory support lists differ: LPDDR5X for AMD, versus DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 for Intel. Memory bus width differs as quad-channel versus single-channel, with memory bandwidth at 273.1 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the AMD chip but absent on the Intel chip.

PCIe generations and lane counts differ: Gen 4 with 16 lanes versus Gen 3 with 9 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as Radeon 8050S versus UHD Graphics 770. Process nodes differ as 4 nm (TSMC) versus 10 nm (Intel). Die size is recorded only for the AMD part at 70.6 mm².

Cache configurations differ in structure: AMD uses per-core L2 of 1 MB and shared L3 of 32 MB, while Intel uses shared L2 of 2 MB and shared L3 of 6 MB. L1 cache per core is 80 KB for AMD versus 96 KB for Intel. Sockets differ as AMD Socket FP11 versus Intel BGA 1264. Part numbers are 100-000002144 for AMD and SRPNT for Intel. Release dates differ, with Intel launching in January 2025 and AMD in May 2026.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 versus the Intel Core 3 N355. The winsA and winsB fields are both zero, indicating no recorded victories for either processor in direct comparisons. Benchmark data exists only for the Intel Core 3 N355, with no corresponding scores for the AMD part.

For the Intel Core 3 N355, the recorded benchmarks show a Cinebench R15 multicore score of 822 and a single-core score of 168. In Cinebench R20, the multicore score is 3,612 and the single-core score is 509. Cinebench R23 yields a multicore score of 5,262 and a single-core score of 1,039. These scores position the N355 within the performance range of its nearest rivals, which include the Intel Core i3-12100F (average score 13,494, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-9500 (13,452, 0.3% ahead). The N355's average benchmark score of 13,492 places it just 2 points below the Core i3-12100F and 40 points below the Core i5-9500.

PassMark results for the N355 include multithread score of 10,174, single-thread score of 2,153, integer math at 33,894, floating point math at 22,695, extended instructions at 5,968, data compression at 117,435, data encryption at 8,121, physics at 625, random string sorting at 14,706, and find prime numbers at 27. These figures indicate balanced performance across integer and floating-point workloads, with data compression showing particularly strong throughput.

Without AMD benchmark data, a direct numerical comparison is impossible. However, the specification sheet provides a qualitative basis for expected performance. The AMD part's 25% higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz) and double thread count should deliver substantially higher multithreaded scores in Cinebench and PassMark, assuming similar instructions-per-clock efficiency. The 4 nm process and Zen 5 architecture typically provide higher IPC than the Alder Lake-N cores in the Intel part. The memory bandwidth advantage of 273.1 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s should also translate into better performance in memory-bound benchmarks.

The percentile ranks differ: the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, while the Intel part sits at the 68th percentile. This suggests that despite the AMD part's superior specifications, the Intel part's recorded scores place it higher in the overall distribution, possibly due to the AMD part's lack of benchmark entries lowering its comparative standing. The Intel part's nearest rivals all fall within a 1.1% performance band, indicating that the N355 is a consistent performer within its class. The AMD part's absence from benchmark records leaves its actual percentile position as a placeholder rather than a measured result.