AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 7 251TE Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two processors cleanly by workload type and platform intent. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is a 16-core, 32-thread mobile part built for dense compute in a compact power envelope, while the Intel Core 7 251TE is a 24-core, 32-thread desktop part aimed at sustained multi-threaded throughput. The benchmark results confirm that the Intel part wins almost everywhere measurable, but the AMD part wins in the areas that matter for mobile deployment.

The Intel Core 7 251TE holds the advantage in multi-threaded rendering workloads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 2572, and in Cinebench R20 multicore it reaches 10717. The Cinebench R23 multicore result of 25518 further reinforces this pattern. These scores place the Intel part at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 41650. Its nearest rivals, the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H at 41621 and the Intel Core i7-14650HX at 41576, sit within 0.1% and 0.2% respectively, confirming that the Core 7 251TE is comfortably positioned in the upper tier of desktop processors.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so its wins cannot be stated numerically. However, the specification data indicates where it would claim advantages: memory bandwidth, process node, and integrated graphics. The AMD part uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 configuration at 89.6 GB/s. That is a 183.5 GB/s difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which directly benefits memory-heavy workloads such as data compression, encryption, and large in-memory datasets. The AMD part also integrates the Radeon 8065S graphics solution, which is a more capable integrated GPU than the Intel UHD Graphics 770, based on the architectural positioning of the two parts.

The Intel part wins on core count and clock speed. It has 24 cores versus 16, a boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 5.20 GHz, and a larger physical die at 215 mm² versus the AMD's 2x 70.6 mm² chiplets. The Intel part also uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. These differences favor the Intel part for raw compute and peripheral bandwidth, while the AMD part favors memory throughput and power efficiency per watt.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses the Gorgon Halo codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation built on the Zen 5 architecture. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC and uses a chiplet design with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The Intel Core 7 251TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename and belongs to the Core 7 generation. It is fabricated on a 10 nm process at Intel and uses a monolithic die of 215 mm².

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel part also provides 80 KB of L1 per core but increases L2 to 1.25 MB per core, while its L3 cache is 36 MB and shared. The AMD part therefore has a larger total L3 pool, which helps with data reuse across 16 cores. The Intel part compensates with more L2 per core and more physical cores.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The AMD part supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, delivering 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, delivering 89.6 GB/s. Both parts support ECC memory, which is notable for workstation-class reliability. The AMD part is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1700.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part's newer PCIe generation offers double the per-lane bandwidth for expansion cards and NVMe storage. The AMD part's older PCIe generation is balanced by its much higher memory bandwidth, which matters more for integrated graphics and memory-bound compute.

The Intel part was released on 2025-01-12, while the AMD part was released on 2026-05-19. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. Both parts are currently marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table in the database contains no entries, so direct comparative scores are not available. However, the Intel Core 7 251TE has its own benchmark results, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has none. This means the only measurable performance data comes from the Intel side.

The Intel Core 7 251TE scores 25518 in Cinebench R23 multicore and 3602 in Cinebench R23 singlecore. In Cinebench R20, it scores 10717 multicore and 1512 singlecore. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2572 multicore and 362 singlecore. These results show a strong multicore-to-singlecore ratio, indicating that the 24-core configuration scales well across rendering workloads.

PassMark results for the Intel part show 30022 in multithread and 3568 in single thread. Integer math reaches 125739, floating point math reaches 85607, and extended instructions reach 16974. Data compression scores 334399, data encryption scores 22176, and random string sorting scores 39643. Physics scores 1938, and find prime numbers scores 140. These numbers paint a picture of a processor that excels at parallel integer and floating-point work, with particularly strong data compression throughput.

The nearest rivals for the Intel part, based on average benchmark score, are the Intel Core Ultra 7 265H at 41621 with a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core i7-14650HX at 41576 with a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core i7-12850HX at 41779 with a delta of -0.3%, and the Intel Core i7-14700T at 41914 with a delta of -0.6%. These deltas are all within 0.6%, meaning the Core 7 251TE sits in a tightly contested performance tier where no single rival holds a decisive lead.

The AMD part's absence from the benchmark table means its wins cannot be quantified. The specification comparison, however, shows where the AMD part would take victories: memory bandwidth (273.1 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), L3 cache size (64 MB versus 36 MB), process node (4 nm versus 10 nm), and integrated graphics (Radeon 8065S versus UHD Graphics 770). These are structural advantages that would show up in memory-bound and graphics-bound workloads, even if no benchmark scores exist to confirm them.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. Core counts: the AMD part has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel part has 24 cores and 32 threads. The Intel part has 8 more physical cores but the same thread count, meaning the AMD part relies on simultaneous multithreading to reach 32 threads, while the Intel part reaches 32 threads with a mix of performance and efficiency cores.

Clock speeds: 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 1.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The AMD part has a much higher base clock, while the Intel part has a slightly higher boost clock. The Intel part's lower base clock is typical for a desktop part that relies on boost behavior under load.

Power: the AMD part has a TDP of 55 watts, while the Intel part has a TDP of 45 watts. Despite having more cores, the Intel part is rated for lower power consumption, which is notable given its 10 nm process versus the AMD's 4 nm process. The AMD part's higher TDP likely reflects the power draw of its integrated Radeon 8065S GPU and its quad-channel memory controller.

Memory: the AMD part uses LPDDR5X in a quad-channel configuration with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel part uses DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is more than three times that of the Intel part, which is the single largest specification gap between the two.

Cache: the AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3. The Intel part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 36 MB L3 shared. The AMD part has 28 MB more L3 cache, while the Intel part has 0.25 MB more L2 per core.

Connectivity: the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The Intel part's PCIe Gen 5 offers higher per-lane bandwidth. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700.

Process and packaging: the AMD part is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet design. The Intel part is built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a die size of 215 mm², indicating a monolithic design.

Integrated graphics: the AMD part uses the Radeon 8065S, while the Intel part uses the UHD Graphics 770. The AMD part's integrated GPU is positioned as a higher-performance solution, consistent with its much larger memory bandwidth allocation.

Release timing: the Intel part was released on 2025-01-12, while the AMD part was released on 2026-05-19. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has 24 cores, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 16 cores. Both have 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth using quad-channel LPDDR5X, while the Intel Core 7 251TE has 89.6 GB/s using dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5.

Q: What is the Intel Core 7 251TE's average benchmark score and percentile?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has an average benchmark score of 41650 and sits at the 88th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251TE has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and the Intel Core 7 251TE support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses a 4 nm process at TSMC, while the Intel Core 7 251TE uses a 10 nm process at Intel.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear split. The Intel Core 7 251TE is the stronger choice for multi-threaded desktop workloads. Its 24 cores, 5.40 GHz boost clock, and recorded benchmark scores confirm this. It scores 25518 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 10717 in Cinebench R20 multicore, and 2572 in Cinebench R15 multicore. Its PassMark multithread score of 30022 and data compression score of 334399 place it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. For users running rendering, compression, or parallel compute tasks on a desktop platform, the Intel part delivers measurable performance with a 45 watt TDP and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is the stronger choice for memory-bound and mobile workloads. Its 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth is more than three times the Intel part's 89.6 GB/s, and its 64 MB of L3 cache is nearly double the Intel's 36 MB. The 4 nm process node gives it a density advantage, and the Radeon 8065S integrated graphics, combined with quad-channel LPDDR5X, makes it a more capable all-in-one mobile processor. Its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz also suggests better responsiveness at low load states.

The Intel part's launch MSRP is $384, while the AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The Intel part has been available since January 2025, while the AMD part is scheduled for May 2026. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier. For users who need a desktop processor with proven multi-threaded performance and PCIe Gen 5, the Intel Core 7 251TE is the data-backed choice. For users who need a mobile processor with extreme memory bandwidth, a smaller process node, and a more capable integrated GPU, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is the specification-driven choice. The absence of benchmark scores for the AMD part means its performance claims rest entirely on its architecture and memory subsystem, but those specifications are substantial.