AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 3 N350 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains no direct head-to-head measurements between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 3 N350. The recorded data includes a full benchmark suite for the Intel Core 3 N350, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no benchmark scores listed. The AMD part does not appear in the nearest rivals table, and the Intel part is compared against four other processors.

The Intel Core 3 N350 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6274 and a single-core score of 885. In Cinebench R20, it records 2635 multi-core and 371 single-core. The Cinebench R15 results show 632 multi-core and 89 single-core. These numbers establish a baseline for a low-power, eight-thread mobile processor.

PassMark results for the Intel Core 3 N350 show a single-thread score of 1974 and a multithread score of 7382. Integer math scores 27669, floating point math scores 17781, and extended instructions score 3981. Data compression reaches 80444, data encryption reaches 5693, and random string sorting reaches 10102. The physics test scores 446, and the find prime numbers test scores 20.

The Intel Core 3 N350 holds a 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 9903. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3770 with an average score of 9706, which is 2 percent lower. The Intel Core i5-1035G1 scores 9684, 2.3 percent lower. The AMD EPYC 7F52 scores 10159, which is 2.5 percent higher. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 scores 10230, which is 3.2 percent higher.

Since the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no recorded benchmark results, no direct comparison of scores is possible. The database shows a 50th percentile ranking for the AMD part, but with an average benchmark score of zero, this percentile reflects an absence of measured data rather than a competitive result.

The absence of head-to-head results means that any statement about relative performance must rely on the architectural and specification differences recorded in the database. The AMD processor uses 16 cores with 32 threads, a 5.20 GHz boost clock, and a 55 watt TDP. The Intel processor uses 8 cores with 8 threads, a 3.90 GHz boost clock, and a 7 watt TDP. These figures suggest a large gap in multi-threaded capability, but the database provides no direct benchmark confirmation for the AMD part.

The Verdict

The recorded data supports a clear conclusion for the Intel Core 3 N350: it is a measured, active mobile processor with a complete set of benchmark results, a 66th percentile ranking, and an average score of 9903. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no benchmark scores in the database, so its measured performance cannot be stated or compared.

Users seeking documented performance data should select the Intel Core 3 N350, as the database contains concrete results across Cinebench and PassMark tests. The AMD part remains unmeasured in this database, and the 50th percentile ranking with a zero average score does not provide a basis for a performance verdict.

The Intel part sits close to several established processors. It trails the AMD EPYC 7F52 by 2.5 percent and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 by 3.2 percent, while leading the Intel Core i7-3770 by 2 percent and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 by 2.3 percent. This places the Core 3 N350 in a narrow performance band around the 9900 score mark.

For workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput, the AMD part presents a theoretical advantage based on its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 64 MB of L3 cache. However, without benchmark data, that advantage cannot be quantified. The database records no wins for either processor in head-to-head comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation built on Zen 5. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 3 N350 uses the Twin Lake architecture and codename, belongs to the Core 3 generation based on Alder Lake-N, and is manufactured on a 10 nm process at Intel.

The AMD processor integrates a Radeon 8065S graphics solution. The Intel processor integrates UHD Graphics 770. Both are mobile parts, but they target different power envelopes and performance levels.

The AMD part supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. The Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory in a single-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is substantial, with the AMD part offering roughly seven times the recorded memory bandwidth.

ECC memory support differs as well. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core 3 N350 does not. This makes the AMD part more suitable for error-sensitive workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this in practice.

The AMD processor uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel processor uses PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes. The AMD part provides a newer PCIe generation and more lanes, which can affect peripheral throughput and expansion capability.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2 cache, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD L3 cache is more than ten times larger than the Intel L3 cache.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core counts differ: the AMD part has 16 cores, the Intel part has 8. Thread counts differ: the AMD part has 32 threads, the Intel part has 8. The AMD part enables simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part does not.

Base clocks diverge sharply. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.10 GHz, while the Intel part has a base clock of 0.10 GHz. Boost clocks differ as well: the AMD part reaches 5.20 GHz, while the Intel part reaches 3.90 GHz. The AMD part has a 1.30 GHz higher boost clock.

TDP ratings show the largest gap. The AMD part draws 55 watts, while the Intel part draws 7 watts. This is a 48 watt difference, and it reflects fundamentally different design goals. The Intel part targets low-power operation, while the AMD part targets higher sustained performance.

Sockets differ: the AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1264. Memory support differs: the AMD part uses LPDDR5X only, while the Intel part supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5. Memory bus widths differ: the AMD part uses quad-channel, the Intel part uses single-channel.

Release dates differ. The AMD part was released on May 19, 2026, while the Intel part was released on January 6, 2025. The AMD part is newer by over a year. Production status for both is listed as active.

Part numbers differ: the AMD part carries part number 100-000002124, and the Intel part carries part number SRPNS. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported for either. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The process node differs: the AMD part uses 4 nm TSMC, the Intel part uses 10 nm Intel. Foundries differ as well: TSMC produces the AMD part, while Intel produces its own part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 16 cores, while the Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 cores.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N350 support multithreading?

No. The Intel Core 3 N350 has 8 threads for 8 cores, meaning each core handles one thread. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 32 threads for 16 cores, meaning each core handles two threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 records 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth with quad-channel LPDDR5X. The Intel Core 3 N350 records 38.4 GB/s with single-channel DDR4, DDR5, or LPDDR5.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel Core 3 N350 has a TDP of 7 watts.

Q: Does the Intel Core 3 N350 support ECC memory?

No. The Intel Core 3 N350 does not support ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel Core 3 N350?

The Intel Core 3 N350 has an average benchmark score of 9903 and ranks in the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no recorded benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 3 N350 wins in the measured performance category because it is the only processor of the two with benchmark results in the database. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6274 and single-core score of 885 provide concrete data points. Its PassMark multithread score of 7382 and single-thread score of 1974 further document its capabilities. The Intel part also wins in power efficiency based on its 7 watt TDP, which is dramatically lower than the AMD part's 55 watt TDP.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 wins on paper in several specification categories. Its 16 cores and 32 threads double the core count and quadruple the thread count of the Intel part. Its 5.20 GHz boost clock exceeds the Intel part's 3.90 GHz boost clock by 1.30 GHz. Its 64 MB of L3 cache dwarfs the Intel part's 6 MB. Its 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is more than seven times the Intel part's 38.4 GB/s. Its quad-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes exceed the Intel part's single-channel bus and PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

The AMD part also wins on process technology, using a 4 nm TSMC node compared to Intel's 10 nm node. The AMD part supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. The AMD part has a newer release date of May 19, 2026, compared to January 6, 2025 for the Intel part.

For workloads that depend on measured benchmark results, the Intel Core 3 N350 is the only option with data. For workloads that depend on raw core counts, cache size, memory bandwidth, and expansion capability, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 presents the stronger specification sheet. The database records zero wins for either processor in direct head-to-head comparisons, so all conclusions about the AMD part remain speculative until benchmark data is recorded.