AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 vs Intel Core 7 240H Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two mobile processors into distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 holds a 50th percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Intel Core 7 240H sits at the 82nd percentile, placing it well ahead of the AMD part in overall aggregate performance. The Intel chip also carries an average benchmark score of 31,483, a figure that places it among a tight cluster of competitors including the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31,473, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31,508.

The AMD processor wins where power efficiency and memory bandwidth matter most. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, consumes 55 W TDP, and supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a recorded bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. The Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel, has a 45 W TDP, and runs dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory with no bandwidth figure recorded. For workloads that depend heavily on memory throughput, the AMD design offers a structural advantage.

The Intel Core 7 240H wins in raw compute throughput. Its 10 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 5.20 GHz boost clock, deliver higher multi-threaded scores across every recorded Cinebench test. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 counters with 8 cores and 16 threads and a 5.00 GHz boost clock, but the recorded benchmark data shows the Intel part pulling ahead in both single-core and multi-core scenarios.

Single-threaded performance favors the Intel chip. The Core 7 240H records a PassMark single-thread score of 3,782, while the AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The Intel processor also delivers a higher Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,719. For applications that rely on one or two fast cores, the Intel part is the stronger option.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation built on Zen 5 cores. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 7 240H uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically the Raptor Lake-H variant, and belongs to the Core 7 generation under the Raptor Lake Refresh branding. It uses a 10 nm process at Intel with no die size recorded.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. Both chips share an 80 KB L1 cache per core. The AMD part uses 1 MB L2 per core and 32 MB shared L3. The Intel part doubles the L2 to 2 MB per core but reduces the shared L3 to 24 MB. The larger L3 on the AMD chip could benefit workloads with repeated access to a sizable working set, while the larger per-core L2 on the Intel chip may help latency-sensitive single-thread tasks.

Memory architecture separates the two designs sharply. The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s and includes ECC memory support. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, has no recorded bandwidth figure, and does not support ECC memory. The AMD part's quad-channel configuration gives it a theoretical memory throughput advantage that is substantially higher than what a dual-channel design can provide.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD chip uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the CPU only. The Intel chip uses Gen 5 with 8 lanes for the CPU only. The Intel part offers a newer PCIe generation but fewer lanes, while the AMD part offers more lanes at an older generation.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 pairs with a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 7 240H uses Iris Xe Graphics with 64 execution units. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part, so the comparison must remain qualitative.

The Intel processor was released on 2024-12-17 and has a launch MSRP of $502. The AMD processor has a release date of 2026-05-19 and no recorded launch MSRP. Both parts are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no head-to-head benchmark entries between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 and the Intel Core 7 240H. The AMD part has no recorded benchmark scores at all, meaning every quantitative comparison must rely on the Intel chip's standalone results and the architectural differences between the two.

The Intel Core 7 240H records a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 15,764 and a single-core score of 1,719. In Cinebench R20, it scores 8,562 multi-core and 1,208 single-core. In Cinebench R15, the scores are 2,360 multi-core and 249 single-core. These results establish a baseline for the Intel part's performance across three generations of the Cinebench suite.

PassMark results for the Intel chip cover a range of workloads. The multi-thread score is 23,975, and the single-thread score is 3,782. Integer math scores 80,396, floating-point math scores 58,905, and extended instructions score 16,897. Data compression scores 271,774, while data encryption scores 15,155. Prime number finding scores 102, random string sorting scores 28,866, and physics scores 1,723.

The nearest rivals for the Intel Core 7 240H show how tightly grouped its performance is. The Intel Core Ultra 3 205 has an average score of 31,473 with a delta of 0%. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX matches at 31,495 with a delta of 0%. The Intel Core Ultra 5 225H scores 31,508 with a delta of -0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-13500 scores 31,510 with a delta of -0.1%. The Intel Core 7 240H sits squarely within this cluster, effectively tied with all four rivals.

Because the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has no recorded benchmarks, its percentile ranking of 50 and average score of 0 cannot be interpreted as a performance measurement. The database simply lacks the data points needed for a direct numerical comparison. The architectural specifications, however, indicate that the AMD part targets a different balance of memory bandwidth, power draw, and process node efficiency rather than raw multi-thread compute.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H boosts to 5.20 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 boosts to 5.00 GHz.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has 10 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s of recorded bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 240H supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 includes ECC memory support. The Intel Core 7 240H does not.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 240H is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: What does the Intel Core 7 240H's average benchmark score indicate?

A: The Intel Core 7 240H has an average benchmark score of 31,483 and an 82nd percentile ranking. Its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core Ultra 3 205 at 31,473, the AMD Ryzen 9 5980HX at 31,495, and the Intel Core Ultra 5 225H at 31,508, all fall within a delta of 0.1%, showing the Intel part is performance-neutral against its closest peers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 | Intel Core 7 240H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Gorgon Halo | Raptor Lake-H |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5) | Core 7 (Raptor Lake Refresh) |

| Process node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die size | 70.6 mm² | Not recorded |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 cache | 32 MB shared | 24 MB shared |

| Memory support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 273.1 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 8 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 8050S | Iris Xe Graphics 64EU |

| Release date | 2026-05-19 | 2024-12-17 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $502 |

| Part number | 100-000002144 | SRQ6TQ5ML |

The two chips share several traits: both have 16 threads, 80 KB L1 cache per core, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multipliers. Both also support PCIe Gen 4 or newer, with the Intel part moving to Gen 5 while the AMD part stays on Gen 4. The Intel chip was released roughly 17 months earlier and carries a launch MSRP of $502, while the AMD chip has no recorded launch price.

The base clock difference is substantial. The AMD part runs at 3.60 GHz base, which is 1.10 GHz higher than the Intel part's 2.50 GHz base. The boost clocks reverse that relationship, with the Intel part reaching 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for the AMD part. The higher base clock on the AMD chip suggests better sustained all-core performance at lower thermal load, while the higher boost clock on the Intel chip indicates a greater single-core ceiling.

The TDP figures show a 10 W difference, with the AMD part drawing 55 W and the Intel part drawing 45 W. The AMD chip's higher power envelope aligns with its larger memory bus and higher base clock. The Intel chip's lower TDP aligns with its dual-channel memory design and higher process node.

The cache configuration presents a trade-off. The Intel part allocates 2 MB L2 per core, double the AMD part's 1 MB per core, but the AMD part provides 32 MB of shared L3 versus 24 MB for the Intel part. Workloads that fit within the L3 cache will favor the AMD design, while those that benefit from per-core L2 locality may favor the Intel design.

The PCIe lane count and generation differ meaningfully. The AMD part provides 16 Gen 4 lanes, while the Intel part provides 8 Gen 5 lanes. Gen 5 doubles the per-lane bandwidth of Gen 4, so the Intel part's 8 lanes deliver the same total bandwidth as 16 Gen 4 lanes. The AMD part's higher lane count offers more flexibility for connecting multiple devices.

The memory bandwidth advantage for the AMD part is the most pronounced specification difference. At 273.1 GB/s over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus, the AMD chip has a recorded bandwidth figure that the Intel part cannot match, as the Intel chip's dual-channel design has no recorded bandwidth number. This makes the AMD part the superior choice for memory-bound workloads, while the Intel part's higher core count and boost clock make it the stronger option for compute-bound tasks.