AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 7 150HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no recorded benchmark scores for either processor. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 7 150HL both show an average benchmark score of zero, with no entries in their respective benchmark lists. The head-to-head benchmark array is empty, and the win counts for both processors are zero. This means the comparison must rely entirely on the architectural and specification data recorded for each part.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 carries 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Core 7 150HL provides 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part operates with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel part runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock and reaches a 5.00 GHz boost clock. On paper, the AMD processor holds a 0.70 GHz advantage in base frequency and a 0.20 GHz advantage in boost frequency. Thread count favors AMD by 12 threads, which typically translates to better performance in heavily parallel workloads, though no measured data confirms this.

Memory bandwidth is another clear differentiator. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 150HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure recorded. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, while the Intel part does not. These differences suggest that the AMD processor is positioned for memory-intensive tasks such as large dataset processing or integrated graphics workloads, where higher bandwidth directly impacts performance.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The AMD processor has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the Intel processor has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. Both parts use 80 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: AMD provides 1 MB per core, while Intel provides 2 MB per core. The larger L3 cache on the AMD side could reduce memory latency for frequently accessed data, but the larger per-core L2 on the Intel side may benefit single-threaded access patterns. Without benchmark results, these differences remain theoretical.

The AMD processor uses a 4 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel processor uses a 10 nm node from Intel. Smaller process nodes generally allow for higher transistor density and improved power efficiency, though the recorded data does not include transistor counts or power consumption figures beyond TDP. The AMD part has a TDP of 55 watts, and the Intel part has a TDP of 45 watts. The AMD processor shows a higher power envelope, which aligns with its higher core count and boost clock.

The Verdict

The recorded data does not include any benchmark scores, percentile rankings beyond a neutral 50th percentile for both parts, or rival comparisons. The verdict must therefore be drawn strictly from the specification sheet. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 offers more cores, more threads, higher clock speeds, a larger L3 cache, quad-channel memory with higher bandwidth, ECC support, and a smaller process node. The Intel Core 7 150HL offers a lower TDP, dual-channel memory support for both DDR4 and DDR5, and a larger per-core L2 cache.

Users who prioritize raw compute capacity, memory bandwidth, and integrated graphics performance would likely favor the AMD part based on its specifications. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration with a 5.20 GHz boost clock and 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth positions it for heavy multi-threaded workloads and memory-hungry applications. The Radeon 8065S integrated graphics on the AMD part also suggests stronger graphics capability compared to the Iris Xe Graphics 96EU on the Intel part, though no graphics benchmarks are recorded.

Users who require a lower power draw and compatibility with both DDR4 and DDR5 memory modules might consider the Intel Core 7 150HL. The 45 watt TDP is 10 watts lower than the AMD part. The Intel part also uses the Intel Socket 1700, which is a desktop platform, while the AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, a mobile platform. This socket difference has practical implications for system builders. The Intel part targets desktop systems, and the AMD part targets mobile systems, despite both being listed as active production parts.

The data does not support a decisive winner. The AMD processor holds clear specification advantages in most categories, but the absence of measured performance means no definitive conclusion can be drawn. The Intel processor may hold an advantage in power efficiency and platform compatibility, but those are not benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Gorgon Halo. It uses a 4 nm process node fabricated by TSMC. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet design with two identical dies. The processor is part of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation and uses the AMD Socket FP11. It integrates a Radeon 8065S graphics unit. The memory controller supports LPDDR5X across a quad-channel bus with a recorded bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. ECC memory is supported. The PCIe interface provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes for CPU-only connectivity.

The Intel Core 7 150HL is built on the Raptor Lake architecture with the codename Raptor Lake-PS. It uses a 10 nm process node fabricated by Intel. Die size is not recorded. The processor is part of the Core 7 generation and uses the Intel Socket 1700. It integrates Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The memory controller supports both DDR4 and DDR5 across a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes for CPU-only connectivity.

Core count differences are significant. The AMD part has 16 cores and 32 threads, which indicates simultaneous multithreading on all cores. The Intel part has 14 cores and 20 threads, which suggests a hybrid configuration of performance and efficiency cores, though the recorded data does not specify the core type split. The thread count of 20 on a 14-core part implies that only some cores support multithreading, likely the performance cores.

Cache hierarchy differs between the two. AMD uses a uniform 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, with a large 64 MB L3 cache shared across the chip. Intel uses 80 KB L1 per core and 2 MB L2 per core, with a 24 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part has double the L2 per core but less than half the L3 total. This suggests different design philosophies: AMD prioritizes a large shared pool for data-intensive workloads, while Intel provides more private cache per core.

Process technology differences are stark. The 4 nm TSMC node gives AMD a manufacturing advantage in density and potentially efficiency. The 10 nm Intel node is larger, though Intel's 10 nm process is not directly comparable to TSMC's naming convention. No transistor counts are recorded, so exact density comparisons are unavailable.

Platform differences matter for system integration. The AMD part uses a mobile socket (FP11), while the Intel part uses a desktop socket (1700). The AMD part supports quad-channel memory, which is unusual for a mobile processor and indicates a high-end design. The Intel part supports dual-channel memory, which is standard for desktop parts in its class. The AMD part supports ECC, a feature often reserved for workstation or server parts. The Intel part does not support ECC.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 7 150HL has 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part leads by 2 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The AMD processor has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The AMD part is higher in both metrics.

Q: How does memory support compare?

A: The AMD processor supports LPDDR5X memory on a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel processor supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with no recorded bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: What process nodes do the two processors use?

A: The AMD processor uses a 4 nm node from TSMC. The Intel processor uses a 10 nm node from Intel.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD processor has 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel processor has 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 40 MB more L3.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The AMD processor has a TDP of 55 watts. The Intel processor has a TDP of 45 watts. The Intel part has a 10 watt lower power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 wins on core count, thread count, base clock, boost clock, L3 cache size, memory bandwidth, memory channel width, ECC support, and process node density. The 16-core and 32-thread configuration with a 5.20 GHz boost clock gives it a clear specification advantage for multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, scientific computing, and software compilation. The 64 MB L3 cache and 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth support workloads that repeatedly access large datasets. The quad-channel memory bus is a significant advantage for integrated graphics performance, as the Radeon 8065S relies on system memory for frame buffer and texture storage. The 4 nm process node from TSMC suggests better transistor density and potentially better power efficiency per unit of work, though TDP is higher overall.

The Intel Core 7 150HL wins on TDP, L2 cache per core, memory flexibility, and platform compatibility. The 45 watt TDP is lower than the AMD part, which may be preferable for compact desktop builds with limited cooling. The 2 MB L2 cache per core is double the AMD part, which can benefit workloads with high temporal locality in small data sets. The support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory gives system builders flexibility in choosing memory modules, potentially reducing system cost. The Intel Socket 1700 is a widely used desktop platform, which may offer more motherboard options and longer platform availability compared to the AMD FP11 socket.

The integrated graphics comparison favors the AMD part on paper. The Radeon 8065S has no recorded execution unit count, but the higher memory bandwidth of the quad-channel LPDDR5X interface provides a substantial advantage for graphics workloads. The Intel Iris Xe Graphics 96EU has a recorded execution unit count of 96, but it is limited by the dual-channel memory interface, which typically restricts integrated graphics performance.

The production status for both parts is listed as Active. The AMD part has a release date of 2026-05-19, and the Intel part has a release date of 2024-04-07. The Intel part has been available for a longer period. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP, so no pricing comparison is possible. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, indicating both are locked parts intended for standard configurations.

The AMD processor uses a chiplet design with two dies, each measuring 70.6 mm². The Intel processor has no recorded die size. The AMD part has a part number of 100-000002124, and the Intel part has an unknown part number. The AMD part is listed as a mobile segment processor, and the Intel part is listed as a desktop segment processor.

For workloads that demand maximum thread parallelism, memory bandwidth, and cache capacity, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is the stronger choice based on specifications. For workloads that prioritize lower power draw, per-core cache size, and memory module flexibility, the Intel Core 7 150HL has advantages. The absence of benchmark data prevents a quantitative performance ranking, but the specification sheet clearly differentiates the two parts across several key dimensions.