AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 3 304 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 3 304?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 3 304 has 5 cores and 5 threads. This gives the AMD part a 3.2x core advantage and a 6.4x thread advantage.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each processor according to the recorded data?

A: The Intel Core 3 304 sits at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 holds the 50th percentile. Despite having far fewer cores, the Intel part ranks higher in the database.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each chip?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 boosts up to 5.20 GHz, while the Intel Core 3 304 boosts up to 4.30 GHz. The AMD chip has a 0.90 GHz higher maximum clock speed.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor carry?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 64 MB of L3 cache, whereas the Intel Core 3 304 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part carries 58 MB more L3 cache.

Q: What memory types and channels do these mobile processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 3 304 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a single-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the higher memory bandwidth and by how much?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 delivers 273.1 GB/s, which is 213.4 GB/s higher than the Intel Core 3 304's 59.7 GB/s. The AMD chip's quad-channel configuration provides roughly 4.6x the memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing ecosystems. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is built by TSMC on a 4 nm process node, while the Intel Core 3 304 is fabricated by Intel on a 3 nm node. AMD uses the Zen 5 microarchitecture under the "Gorgon Halo" codename, while Intel employs the "Wildcat Lake" architecture for the Core 3 generation.

Core topology is the most dramatic divergence. The AMD part is a monolithic 16-core, 32-thread design with simultaneous multithreading. The Intel part has only 5 cores and 5 threads, indicating no hyper-threading support. Base clocks differ sharply: AMD starts at 3.10 GHz, Intel at 1.50 GHz. Boost clocks also favor AMD, 5.20 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies follow different layouts. AMD allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus a large 64 MB L3 pool. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2 total, and 6 MB of shared L3. Die size data exists only for AMD at 2x 70.6 mm², suggesting a chiplet design; Intel's die size is not recorded.

Memory subsystems are equally divergent. AMD uses LPDDR5X exclusively over a quad-channel interface, reaching 273.1 GB/s. Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but over a single channel, capping at 59.7 GB/s. AMD also enables ECC memory, which Intel does not support.

PCIe lanes differ substantially. AMD provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while Intel offers Gen 4 with only 6 lanes. Integrated graphics also diverge: AMD pairs the CPU with a Radeon 8065S, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with one Xe core.

Power envelopes show the design intent. AMD has a TDP of 55 watts, Intel a TDP of 15 watts. The AMD chip is a performance-oriented mobile processor, while the Intel chip is clearly designed for efficiency and low-power operation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full benchmark suite only for the Intel Core 3 304, with no recorded scores for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495. Therefore, the head-to-head comparison must rely on the Intel part's absolute scores and its nearest rivals, which provide context for its performance tier.

In Cinebench R15, the Intel Core 3 304 scores 849 in multicore and 264 in single-core. In Cinebench R20, it scores 4160 multicore and 587 single-core. Cinebench R23 results show 5263 multicore and 1765 single-core. These scores place the Intel part at the 68th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 13745.

The nearest rival data shows how tightly clustered the Intel part is. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX averages 13786, which is only 0.3% higher than the Intel Core 3 304. The Intel Core i7-8750H averages 13868, 0.9% higher. The AMD EPYC 7443 averages 13936, 1.4% higher. The Intel Core 5 120UL averages 13594, which is 1.1% lower than the Core 3 304.

These delta values indicate that the Intel Core 3 304 performs essentially on par with a high-end desktop Threadripper from the previous generation, a mobile hexa-core from the 8th generation, and a server EPYC part. The data shows a remarkable level of performance for a 5-core, 15-watt mobile chip, with the 68th percentile ranking confirming its position above most CPUs in the database.

Passmark suite results reinforce the picture. The Intel part scores 114775 in data compression, 8501 in data encryption, 9686 in extended instructions, and 29722 in floating point math. Integer math reaches 24640, find prime numbers scores 68, and random string sorting hits 13659. The multithread score is 11625, physics is 868, and single-thread is 3614.

Because no AMD benchmarks are recorded, the relative wins cannot be calculated from direct comparisons. The wins count shows zero for both parts. The analysis must therefore treat the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 as an unmeasured competitor in the database, while the Intel Core 3 304 has a defined performance profile.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an asymmetric comparison. The Intel Core 3 304 has a full benchmark profile and a 68th percentile ranking, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no benchmark scores and sits at the 50th percentile by default.

For users who prioritize single-thread responsiveness and efficiency, the Intel part shows strong data. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1765 and Passmark single-thread score of 3614 demonstrate capable per-core performance. The 15-watt TDP and single-channel memory also indicate a low-power design suited to lightweight mobile workloads.

The AMD part, by contrast, offers specifications that suggest raw throughput advantages. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration, 64 MB L3 cache, quad-channel memory with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth, and 5.20 GHz boost clock all point to a processor designed for heavy multithreaded and memory-intensive tasks. The 55-watt TDP confirms a higher power budget.

The data cannot validate AMD's actual benchmark performance because none exists in the database. The verdict from the recorded measurements is that the Intel Core 3 304 is a proven, well-ranked processor, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 remains a specification sheet without empirical scores. The Intel part's nearest rivals, all within 1.4% of its average score, establish its tier clearly.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 | Intel Core 3 304 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 5 |

| Threads | 32 | 5 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Codename | Gorgon Halo | Wildcat Lake |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | Not recorded |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB per core | 192 KB total |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB total |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 6 MB shared |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 273.1 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes | Gen 4, 6 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8065S | Intel Xe3 Graphics (1 Xe) |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $309 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 304 wins in efficiency and portability scenarios. Its 15-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the AMD part's 55-watt envelope, making it suitable for fanless or ultra-thin designs. The single-channel memory and 6 PCIe lanes reduce board complexity and power draw. The 68th percentile ranking, supported by actual benchmark scores, demonstrates that this low-power chip delivers competitive performance for its class. The nearest rival data, with deltas under 1.5%, shows the Core 3 304 holds its own against much larger and more expensive parts.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 wins on paper in every raw specification category that matters for heavy computation. The 16 cores and 32 threads provide 3.2x the core count and 6.4x the thread count. The quad-channel memory with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth offers 4.6x the throughput, which directly benefits large dataset operations and integrated graphics workloads. The 64 MB L3 cache is more than 10x the Intel part's 6 MB, reducing memory latency for repeated access patterns. The boost clock advantage of 0.90 GHz helps single-threaded bursts.

The PCIe lane count difference is also significant. AMD provides 16 Gen 4 lanes versus Intel's 6, enabling more expansion options for storage and external devices. The ECC memory support on the AMD part addresses reliability-critical workloads, a feature entirely absent from the Intel chip.

The launch MSRP of $309 for the Intel Core 3 304, stated once per database rules, contrasts with the unrecorded price for the AMD part. The data shows the Intel chip is a known quantity with a defined performance profile, while the AMD chip's actual market positioning remains unquantified.

For users who need a validated, low-power mobile processor with proven benchmark results, the Intel Core 3 304 is the only choice with empirical support. For users who prioritize maximum core counts, memory bandwidth, and cache capacity, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 offers superior specifications, though its benchmark performance remains unverified in the database.