AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 and the Intel Core 7 160HL. Both processors sit at the 50th percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database, and neither has an average benchmark score listed. This means the quantitative performance picture must be assembled from the specification data rather than direct measurement results. The lack of recorded benchmark wins for either part further confirms that no direct comparison data exists at this time.

What the recorded data does show is a clear split in design priorities. The AMD part uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel part uses 14 cores and 20 threads. Thread count favors AMD by four threads, which indicates simultaneous multithreading on all 12 AMD cores versus Intel's 14 cores with only 6 of them supporting hyper-threading. Raw core count favors Intel by two cores. Without benchmark scores, the practical impact of these differences cannot be quantified, but the architectural split is clear: AMD prioritizes thread density, Intel prioritizes core count.

Clock speeds also point in opposite directions. The AMD chip has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Intel chip has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Intel holds a 0.20 GHz advantage at boost, while AMD holds a 0.70 GHz advantage at base. The higher base clock on the AMD part suggests stronger sustained all-core performance at lower power draw, while Intel's higher boost clock indicates a higher ceiling for lightly threaded bursts.

Memory bandwidth is where the AMD part separates itself most decisively. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The 273.1 GB/s figure is the only memory bandwidth number available, and it is roughly four times what a typical dual-channel DDR5 configuration would provide, though the database does not list a comparative number for the Intel part. This bandwidth advantage directly benefits workloads that saturate memory, such as large dataset processing, integrated graphics operations, and certain scientific computations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has 12 cores.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 has 24 threads, while the Intel Core 7 160HL has 20 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Intel Core 7 160HL boosts to 5.20 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490's 5.00 GHz boost.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 supports quad-channel memory, while the Intel Core 7 160HL supports dual-channel memory.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 7 160HL does not.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Core 7 160HL uses a 10 nm process from Intel.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 uses the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation built on Zen 5 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size recorded as 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture with the Raptor Lake-PS codename, manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel. The process node difference is substantial: 4 nm versus 10 nm, which gives AMD a significant density and efficiency advantage on paper.

Cache layouts diverge sharply. The AMD part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part also has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, but doubles L2 to 2 MB per core and offers only 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's 64 MB L3 is nearly three times the Intel part's 24 MB, which matters for workloads with large working sets that benefit from on-die caching. The Intel part's larger per-core L2 may help with smaller, more localized data access patterns.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 pairs with a Radeon 8050S, while the Intel Core 7 160HL pairs with Iris Xe Graphics 96EU. The database does not list performance numbers for either iGPU, but the AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory at 273.1 GB/s provides substantially more bandwidth to the integrated graphics than the Intel part's dual-channel configuration. Memory bandwidth is often the limiting factor for integrated graphics performance, so the AMD part has a structural advantage for iGPU-heavy workloads.

Socket and market segment also separate the two. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11 and is classified as a mobile processor. The Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700 and is classified as a desktop processor. Despite the mobile classification, the AMD part has a 55 W TDP, while the Intel desktop part has a 45 W TDP. The AMD part also includes a 16-lane PCIe Gen 4 connection, while the Intel part provides 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The following specification fields differ between the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 and the Intel Core 7 160HL:

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 | Intel Core 7 160HL |

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

| Cores | 12 | 14 |

| Threads | 24 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.20 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 45 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Raptor Lake |

| Codename | Gorgon Halo | Raptor Lake-PS |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 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 Lanes | 16 (CPU only) | 8 (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-05-19 | 2024-04-07 |

| Part Number | 100-000002141 | unknown |

The release dates place the Intel part nearly two years earlier than the AMD part. The AMD part also records a specific part number, while the Intel part's part number is listed as unknown.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not include any direct benchmark comparisons, so the verdict must be drawn from specifications. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 delivers a quad-channel memory interface with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth, 64 MB of L3 cache, 24 threads, ECC memory support, and a 4 nm process from TSMC. The Intel Core 7 160HL counters with 14 cores, 20 threads, a higher 5.20 GHz boost clock, a lower 45 W TDP, and dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5.

For workloads that depend on memory throughput, large caches, or thread density, the AMD part is the stronger choice on paper. The 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 MB L3 cache give it a clear structural edge for data-intensive tasks. The 24 threads versus 20 threads also favors AMD for heavily parallel workloads. For workloads that favor higher boost clocks or lower power draw, the Intel part has the advantage. The 5.20 GHz boost clock is the highest single-thread ceiling in this comparison, and the 45 W TDP makes it the more power-efficient part on paper despite being a desktop processor.

The market segment difference matters. The AMD part is classified as mobile, the Intel part as desktop. This suggests the AMD chip targets high-end laptops or compact mobile workstations, while the Intel chip targets desktop systems. The socket difference reinforces this: AMD Socket FP11 is a mobile and small-form-factor platform, while Intel Socket 1700 is a mainstream desktop platform. Buyers should match the processor to their intended platform rather than treating them as drop-in alternatives.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 490 wins on thread count, with 24 threads versus 20 threads. It wins on memory bandwidth, with 273.1 GB/s over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus. It wins on L3 cache capacity, with 64 MB versus 24 MB. It wins on process node, with 4 nm versus 10 nm. It wins on ECC memory support, which the Intel part lacks. It wins on PCIe lane count, with 16 lanes versus 8 lanes. It also has a higher base clock, 3.20 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, which supports sustained all-core performance.

The Intel Core 7 160HL wins on core count, with 14 cores versus 12 cores. It wins on boost clock, with 5.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. It wins on TDP, with 45 W versus 55 W. It wins on L2 cache per core, with 2 MB versus 1 MB. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD part is limited to LPDDR5X. It also has an earlier release date, appearing in the database as released in April 2024 versus May 2026 for the AMD part.

The use-case split follows directly from these wins. The AMD part suits memory-heavy mobile workloads, integrated graphics scenarios that benefit from high bandwidth, multithreaded productivity tasks, and applications that can use ECC memory. The Intel part suits desktop builds with lower power budgets, single-threaded workloads that scale with boost clock, and systems that already use DDR4 or DDR5 memory modules. Neither part has recorded benchmark wins, so these conclusions rest entirely on the specification differences documented above.