AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 and the Intel Processor 300 contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results. The database shows zero wins for either processor in direct comparisons, and the average benchmark score for both parts is recorded as zero. This absence of measured performance data means the relative standing between these two CPUs cannot be quantified through direct testing at this time.

Both processors occupy the 50th percentile against all CPUs in the database, which places them at the midpoint of the recorded performance distribution. This percentile ranking is identical for both parts, indicating that the database currently treats them as statistically equivalent in overall standing despite their substantial architectural differences.

The lack of head-to-head measurements is notable given how different these two processors are on paper. The AMD part is a mobile processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel part is a desktop processor with 2 cores and 4 threads. Without benchmark scores, the head-to-head comparison must rely entirely on the architectural specifications and feature sets recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation built on the Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process node at TSMC, with a die size of 70.6 mm². The Intel Processor 300 uses the Raptor Lake-S codename and belongs to the Intel Processor generation built on the Raptor Lake architecture. It is manufactured on a 10 nm process node at Intel, with a die size of 163 mm².

The core configuration differs dramatically. The AMD processor provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel processor provides 2 cores and 4 threads. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no recorded boost clock, meaning it operates at a fixed frequency.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both processors share an L1 cache of 80 KB per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the AMD part versus 1.25 MB per core on the Intel part. The shared L3 cache is 32 MB on the AMD processor, compared to 6 MB on the Intel processor. This gives the AMD processor a significantly larger pool of shared cache for its 8 cores.

Memory support shows a clear split in strategy. The AMD processor uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus, and no memory bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is not supported on the Intel part.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. The AMD processor includes a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel processor includes UHD Graphics 710. PCIe support also differs: the AMD part uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part uses Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The AMD processor fits the AMD Socket FP11 and has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel processor fits the Intel Socket 1700 and has a TDP of 46 watts. The AMD part was released on 2026-05-19, while the Intel part was released on 2024-01-07. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $82; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part. Both processors have locked multipliers. The AMD part number is 100-000002144, and the Intel part number is SRN3J.

The market segments differ as well. The AMD processor is classified as a mobile part, while the Intel processor is classified as a desktop part. This distinction matters for platform expectations and thermal envelopes, even though the recorded TDP values are relatively close.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 wins on core count, thread count, boost clock capability, L3 cache size, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics tier. Its 8-core, 16-thread configuration provides four times the core count and four times the thread count of the Intel Processor 300. The 32 MB shared L3 cache is more than five times the 6 MB L3 cache on the Intel part. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth is a substantial advantage for memory-intensive workloads. ECC memory support is an additional feature absent from the Intel processor.

The AMD part also wins on process technology. The 4 nm TSMC node is considerably more advanced than the 10 nm Intel node, and the AMD die is less than half the physical size of the Intel die at 70.6 mm² versus 163 mm². The Radeon 8050S integrated graphics is a higher-tier solution than the UHD Graphics 710.

The Intel Processor 300 wins on base clock, L2 cache per core, memory flexibility, PCIe generation, and release date. Its 3.90 GHz base clock is higher than the 3.60 GHz base clock of the AMD part, which means the Intel processor runs at a higher frequency at all times since no boost clock is recorded. The 1.25 MB L2 cache per core is 25% larger than the 1 MB per core on the AMD part. Support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives the Intel processor broader platform compatibility. The Gen 5 PCIe interface is one generation ahead of the Gen 4 interface on the AMD part. The Intel processor also launched earlier, with a release date of 2024-01-07 versus 2026-05-19 for the AMD part.

The Intel processor has a lower TDP at 46 watts versus 55 watts, which is a modest power advantage. The smaller core count and fixed clock speed contribute to this lower thermal envelope.

FAQ

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor 300 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does the Intel Processor 300 support?

A: The Intel Processor 300 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory through a dual-channel memory bus. No memory bandwidth figure is recorded for this part.

Q: What is the process node and die size for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 70.6 mm². The Intel Processor 300 is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel with a die size of 163 mm².

Q: What integrated graphics does each processor use?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses the Radeon 8050S. The Intel Processor 300 uses UHD Graphics 710.

Q: When was each processor released?

A: The Intel Processor 300 was released on 2024-01-07. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 was released on 2026-05-19.

Q: What is the TDP for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel Processor 300 has a TDP of 46 watts.

The Verdict

The recorded data shows two processors designed for entirely different purposes. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 is a mobile processor with a high core count, high memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a more advanced integrated graphics solution. The Intel Processor 300 is a desktop processor with a modest core count, a higher base clock, broader memory compatibility, and a newer PCIe generation.

The AMD processor is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count and thread count. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide four times the parallel processing capacity of the Intel part. The 32 MB L3 cache and 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-heavy operations. The ECC memory support makes it suitable for environments where data integrity is required. The Radeon 8050S integrated graphics is a substantially more capable GPU than the UHD Graphics 710.

The Intel processor is the better fit for scenarios that favor higher base clocks and lower power draw. Its 3.90 GHz base clock exceeds the AMD part's 3.60 GHz base clock, and its 46 watt TDP is lower by 9 watts. The dual memory support for DDR4 and DDR5 provides flexibility in system building. The Gen 5 PCIe interface offers newer connectivity standards.

The lack of recorded benchmark results means the database cannot confirm how these architectural differences translate into measured performance. The 50th percentile ranking for both parts suggests the database treats them as comparable in overall standing, but this equivalence is not backed by direct head-to-head benchmark scores. The selection between these two processors ultimately depends on the target platform and workload profile, as the data shows two fundamentally different designs with no measured performance comparison available.