AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 vs Intel Core 7 150HL Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core and thread counts of the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 and the Intel Core 7 150HL?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part uses simultaneous multithreading to reach 24 threads, whereas the Intel part offers fewer threads than cores due to its hybrid architecture.

Q: How do their base and boost clock speeds compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The Intel Core 7 150HL has a lower base clock of 2.40 GHz but matches the AMD part with a 5.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor supports a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory and delivers 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 150HL uses dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory, and its memory bandwidth is not listed in the database.

Q: Do both processors have the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 7 150HL uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

Q: What are the integrated graphics solutions in each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 includes a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 7 150HL includes Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units.

Q: What is the production status and release timing for both parts?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has a release date of 2026-05-19, while the Intel Core 7 150HL was released earlier, on 2024-04-07.

---

The Verdict

The database shows two processors with equal overall percentile placement against all CPUs, both at the 50th percentile. However, the recorded specifications indicate distinct design targets, and the head-to-head benchmark data is empty, meaning no direct performance scores exist in the database for these two parts. Therefore, the verdict relies solely on specification analysis rather than measured benchmark outcomes.

For workloads that depend on high memory throughput, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 is the clear pick. Its quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth stands far above the Intel Core 7 150HL, which uses dual-channel memory and has no recorded bandwidth figure. Applications that stream large datasets, such as database processing or high-resolution image manipulation, would favor the AMD chip.

For multi-threaded compute, the AMD part offers 24 threads versus 20 on the Intel chip. Even though the Intel part has 14 physical cores, the AMD processor’s 12 cores with simultaneous multithreading produce more concurrent threads. The AMD chip also has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz compared to 2.40 GHz, which benefits sustained workloads that do not reach peak boost frequencies.

The Intel Core 7 150HL counters with a larger physical core count of 14, which may help in workloads that scale poorly with simultaneous multithreading and prefer additional independent cores. It also carries a larger L2 cache per core at 2 MB versus 1 MB on the AMD part. However, the AMD chip holds a massive 64 MB shared L3 cache, while the Intel part has only 24 MB shared L3.

For integrated graphics, the AMD Radeon 8050S is paired with the high-bandwidth memory system, which strongly benefits GPU tasks that rely on memory access. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units is a capable integrated solution, but it operates with a narrower dual-channel memory bus.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 also supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 150HL does not. This makes the AMD processor suitable for error-sensitive compute environments. The AMD chip uses the AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700, so motherboard compatibility separates the two completely.

In summary, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 is the better choice for memory-bandwidth-hungry and high-thread-count workloads, especially with ECC support. The Intel Core 7 150HL is a desktop-oriented part with a higher physical core count and a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts on the AMD chip, making it a more power-conscious option for systems that do not require extreme memory throughput.

---

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark section in the database contains no recorded scores for these two processors. There are zero benchmark entries, zero wins for either part, and no nearest rival data. This means a direct numerical comparison of performance is not possible from the available information.

What the database does provide is the overall percentile placement: both the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 and the Intel Core 7 150HL sit at the 50th percentile against all CPUs. This indicates that in the aggregate CPU benchmark distribution, they occupy the same relative position, but it does not reveal any specific workload performance.

Given the absence of benchmark scores, the only quantitative comparisons come from specification fields. The AMD processor’s 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a concrete figure that dwarfs the Intel part’s unspecified bandwidth. The thread count difference is also measurable: 24 threads on the AMD side versus 20 on the Intel side.

The base clock differential is another point of data. The AMD chip runs at 3.20 GHz, which is 0.80 GHz higher than the Intel chip’s 2.40 GHz base. At boost, both reach 5.00 GHz, so peak single-thread frequency is identical.

Cache capacities differ significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 provides 64 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel Core 7 150HL provides 24 MB. The L1 cache per core is identical at 80 KB, but the L2 cache per core is 1 MB for AMD and 2 MB for Intel.

Without direct benchmark outcomes, the database cannot confirm which processor wins in any specific application. The analysis remains specification-based. The AMD part appears stronger in memory bandwidth and thread count, while the Intel part offers more physical cores and a larger per-core L2 cache.

---

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specification fields.

Manufacturer and process node: AMD builds the Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Intel builds the Core 7 150HL on a 10 nm process at Intel. This is a substantial process technology gap.

Socket: The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. These are incompatible platforms.

Cores and threads: The AMD processor has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel processor has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Clocks: The AMD base clock is 3.20 GHz, and the Intel base clock is 2.40 GHz. Both boost to 5.00 GHz.

TDP: The AMD part has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel part has a TDP of 45 watts.

Cache: The L1 cache per core is 80 KB on both. The L2 cache per core is 1 MB on AMD and 2 MB on Intel. The L3 cache is 64 MB on AMD and 24 MB on Intel.

Memory support: The AMD part supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 273.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and no recorded bandwidth.

ECC memory: The AMD part supports ECC memory. The Intel part does not.

PCIe: The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics: The AMD part uses Radeon 8050S. The Intel part uses Iris Xe Graphics 96EU.

Market segment: The AMD part is listed as Mobile. The Intel part is listed as Desktop.

Release date: The AMD part is dated 2026-05-19. The Intel part is dated 2024-04-07.

Part number: The AMD part has the number 100-000002141. The Intel part number is listed as unknown.

---

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 and the Intel Core 7 150HL is pronounced.

The AMD processor uses the codename Gorgon Halo and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation based on Zen 5. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet design with two dies. The processor supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory, achieving 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth. It also includes ECC memory support, which is a reliability feature typically absent from consumer-focused chips.

The Intel Core 7 150HL uses the codename Raptor Lake-PS and belongs to the Core 7 generation based on Raptor Lake architecture. It is built on a 10 nm process at Intel. No die size is recorded. The processor supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 memory, and no memory bandwidth figure is listed. It does not support ECC memory.

The cache hierarchy differs in structure. The AMD chip has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, which is a large pool for a mobile processor. The Intel chip has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core L2 cache is larger on the Intel part at 2 MB versus 1 MB on the AMD part, but the AMD part compensates with a much larger L3 pool.

The integrated graphics architectures also differ. The AMD Radeon 8050S benefits from the quad-channel memory bus, which provides substantial bandwidth for graphics operations. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units relies on the dual-channel memory bus, which is a narrower path.

The market segments reflect different design philosophies. The AMD part is listed as Mobile, while the Intel part is listed as Desktop. This aligns with the socket choices: AMD Socket FP11 is a mobile-oriented socket, while Intel Socket 1700 is a desktop socket.

The production status for both is Active, meaning both are currently available parts. The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the Intel part releasing in 2024 and the AMD part in 2026.

---

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 wins in scenarios that demand high memory bandwidth. The quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth is the strongest specification advantage in this comparison. Workloads such as large-scale data analytics, video editing with high-resolution footage, or scientific computing that streams large arrays would benefit from this memory throughput.

The AMD part also wins on thread count, offering 24 threads versus 20 on the Intel part. This gives it an advantage in heavily parallel workloads such as rendering, compilation, or virtualization where thread count directly impacts throughput. The higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.40 GHz also helps sustained performance in all-core workloads that do not reach boost frequencies.

ECC memory support is another AMD advantage. Systems that require error correction in memory, such as financial modeling or long-duration compute jobs, would favor the AMD chip.

The Intel Core 7 150HL wins on physical core count, with 14 cores versus 12 on the AMD part. For workloads that scale better with independent cores rather than simultaneous multithreading, the Intel chip may perform more efficiently. The larger per-core L2 cache of 2 MB versus 1 MB on the AMD part can also benefit workloads with high per-core data locality.

The Intel part has a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts on the AMD part, which makes it a more power-efficient choice for desktop systems with limited cooling or power budgets. It also uses a common desktop socket, Intel Socket 1700, which may offer broader motherboard compatibility.

For integrated graphics, the AMD Radeon 8050S paired with the high-bandwidth memory system is likely the stronger solution for graphics tasks, but the Intel Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units is a capable alternative for basic display and light GPU acceleration.

In the absence of recorded benchmark scores, the database cannot assign performance wins. The specification analysis indicates that the AMD processor is oriented toward memory-intensive and high-throughput mobile computing, while the Intel processor is a desktop-oriented part with more physical cores and lower power consumption.