AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 7 160HL Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database currently records no head-to-head benchmark results for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 versus the Intel Core 7 160HL. Neither processor has any submitted benchmark scores in the database, and the head-to-head comparison table is empty. Consequently, there are no recorded win counts for either part: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has zero wins, and the Intel Core 7 160HL also has zero wins.

This absence of measured data means that direct performance comparisons cannot be established from benchmark runs. The database shows both processors at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, which is the default position for parts without recorded scores. The average benchmark score for both is zero, confirming that no performance measurements have been logged for either unit.

Without benchmark data, the only comparative information available comes from the architectural specifications and feature sets recorded for each processor. These specifications provide a basis for qualitative analysis, but they do not substitute for measured performance results. The data indicates that both processors are active in production, with the AMD part released on May 19, 2026, and the Intel part released on April 7, 2024.

The absence of benchmark scores is itself a significant finding. It suggests that neither processor has been subjected to the database's standardized testing procedures, or that results have not yet been uploaded. For a benchmark database, this means that any performance ranking between these two parts remains undetermined until testing data is recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Gorgon Halo, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. The Intel Core 7 160HL uses the Raptor Lake architecture under the codename Raptor Lake-PS, fabricated on a 10 nm process by Intel. This difference in process node is substantial: the AMD part uses a smaller manufacturing process, which typically correlates with improved power efficiency and higher transistor density, though the database does not record transistor counts for either processor.

The AMD processor features 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel processor features 14 cores and 20 threads. The AMD part therefore provides two additional cores and twelve additional threads. This thread advantage suggests greater capacity for parallel workloads, particularly in applications that scale well with thread count. The Intel part's lower thread count relative to core count indicates the presence of efficiency cores that do not support hyper-threading, a design characteristic consistent with Raptor Lake's hybrid architecture.

Cache configurations differ markedly between the two processors. Both allocate 80 KB of L1 cache per core. For L2 cache, the AMD part provides 1 MB per core, while the Intel part provides 2 MB per core. The Intel processor therefore has a larger L2 allocation per core, which can benefit workloads with high per-core data locality. In L3 cache, the AMD processor provides 64 MB total, while the Intel processor provides 24 MB shared. The AMD part has over 2.5 times the L3 cache capacity, which can substantially improve performance for data-intensive workloads that fit within the larger cache.

Memory support also diverges significantly. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 273.1 GB/s. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The AMD part's quad-channel configuration and dedicated bandwidth number indicate a memory subsystem designed for high-throughput operations. The Intel part's dual-channel configuration with DDR4/DDR5 support offers flexibility in memory selection but does not match the AMD part's recorded bandwidth.

ECC memory support is present on the AMD processor but absent on the Intel processor. This makes the AMD part suitable for environments where error-correcting memory is required, such as certain server or workstation deployments. The Intel part does not offer this capability according to the recorded data.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The AMD processor provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel processor provides PCIe Gen 4 with 8 lanes from the CPU. The AMD part offers double the CPU-attached PCIe lane count, which can benefit configurations with multiple high-bandwidth devices such as GPUs or NVMe storage.

Integrated graphics also differ. The AMD part uses Radeon 8065S graphics, while the Intel part uses Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The database does not record performance metrics for either integrated GPU, so comparative graphics capability cannot be quantified from the available data.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. These sockets are incompatible with each other, meaning the processors cannot be used in the same motherboards. The AMD part is classified in the mobile market segment, while the Intel part is classified in the desktop market segment. This segment difference aligns with the memory support: LPDDR5X is typically found in mobile platforms, while DDR4/DDR5 support is common in desktop platforms.

Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking. The AMD part has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel part has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. Both processors reach the same maximum boost clock, but the AMD part has a higher base clock. The AMD part also has a higher recorded TDP at 55 watts, compared to the Intel part's 45 watts.

The AMD processor's die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a multi-die design. The Intel processor's die size is not recorded in the database. The AMD part has a part number of 100-000002124, while the Intel part's part number is listed as unknown.

Where Each One Wins

Based solely on the recorded specifications, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 holds advantages in several areas. Its 16-core, 32-thread configuration exceeds the Intel part's 14-core, 20-thread configuration, providing more parallel execution resources. The larger 64 MB L3 cache compared to 24 MB gives the AMD part a potential edge in workloads that benefit from large shared cache, such as database operations, compilation tasks, or scientific computing. The quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth surpasses the Intel part's dual-channel configuration, which lacks a recorded bandwidth figure. This memory bandwidth advantage is particularly relevant for memory-bound applications.

The AMD part's ECC memory support makes it appropriate for error-sensitive workloads where data integrity is paramount. Its 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU double the Intel part's 8 lanes, allowing for more expansive I/O configurations. The higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus 2.50 GHz may benefit single-threaded performance in lightly threaded applications, though both parts share the same 5.20 GHz boost clock.

The Intel Core 7 160HL holds advantages in other areas. Its 2 MB L2 cache per core doubles the AMD part's 1 MB per core, which can benefit workloads with high per-core data reuse. The support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory provides flexibility in memory selection, allowing systems to use either memory type based on availability or preference. The Intel part's lower TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts indicates potentially lower power consumption, which matters for thermally constrained environments. Its desktop market segment classification and Socket 1700 compatibility may make it easier to integrate into existing desktop platforms.

The Intel part's 10 nm process node, while larger than the AMD part's 4 nm node, does not inherently indicate inferior performance. The Raptor Lake architecture's hybrid design, with performance and efficiency cores, may provide advantages in workloads that can effectively utilize its specific core types, though the database does not record core-type breakdowns.

In the absence of benchmark scores, these specification-based advantages cannot be confirmed through measured performance. The database presents these as distinct feature sets rather than proven performance differences. The AMD part appears positioned for high-throughput, memory-intensive workloads, while the Intel part appears positioned for flexible desktop deployments with lower power requirements.

The Verdict

The recorded data provides no benchmark results for either the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 or the Intel Core 7 160HL. Both processors sit at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, a default value that carries no performance information. The average benchmark score of zero for both parts confirms that no testing data has been logged.

Given this absence of measurements, the database cannot establish a performance hierarchy between these two processors. Any selection between them must rely on the recorded architectural specifications rather than benchmark outcomes. The AMD part offers more cores, more threads, larger L3 cache, higher memory bandwidth, ECC support, and more PCIe lanes. The Intel part offers larger per-core L2 cache, dual memory type support, lower TDP, and a desktop form factor.

The data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is a mobile-class processor with a high-bandwidth memory subsystem and substantial cache capacity, suited for workloads that demand significant memory throughput and parallel processing. The Intel Core 7 160HL is a desktop-class processor with flexible memory options and lower power draw, suited for conventional desktop tasks where those characteristics are prioritized.

Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, so no pricing information is available from the database. Both parts remain in active production status, meaning they are currently available in the market.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: without benchmark scores, no performance winner can be declared. The AMD part's specification sheet is more robust in several categories, but the Intel part's design goals differ in ways that may matter for specific use cases. The database will require actual benchmark submissions to provide a definitive performance comparison.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel Core 7 160HL has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache capacity for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 160HL has 24 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core 7 160HL does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus. The Intel Core 7 160HL supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the boost clock speed for each processor?

A: Both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 7 160HL have a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Are there any benchmark scores recorded for these processors?

A: No. The database records zero benchmark scores for both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 7 160HL, and both have an average benchmark score of zero.