AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 7 360 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Core 7 360

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 and Intel Core 7 360 represent two distinct approaches to mobile computing. The AMD part is a 16-core, 32-thread processor built on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Intel part is a 6-core, 6-thread chip on Intel's 3 nm node. The database shows the Intel part holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the AMD part sits at the 50th percentile. However, the AMD processor carries significantly more raw compute resources, including a 64 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core 7 360 delivers its strongest results in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. Its recorded Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1924 points, combined with a PassMark single-thread score of 4274, indicates a design optimized for responsiveness in everyday tasks. The 6-core, 6-thread configuration, with no hyper-threading, keeps the workload distribution simple and efficient for applications that scale poorly across many threads. Data from the database shows the Intel part outperforms several close rivals in average benchmark score, including the Intel Core i3-13100, Intel Core 5 330, Intel Core i3-14100, and Intel Core 3 305, with the Intel Core 7 360 scoring 18374 on average against scores ranging from 18302 to 18380 for those comparables.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 wins in heavily threaded scenarios. Its 16 cores and 32 threads give it a substantial advantage in parallel workloads, though the database does not include direct benchmark scores for this processor. The architectural specifications alone indicate a large performance envelope: 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory subsystem further reinforces this advantage with quad-channel LPDDR5X support delivering 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Intel part's single-channel configuration at 59.7 GB/s.

For integrated graphics, the AMD part uses a Radeon 8065S, while the Intel part features Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD solution benefits from the higher memory bandwidth available through quad-channel support, which directly impacts graphics performance in memory-bound scenarios. The Intel solution, with its lower bandwidth ceiling, is better suited for basic display output and light media tasks.

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 architecture. It is manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The processor operates with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, drawing a 55 W TDP. It uses AMD Socket FP11 and supports LPDDR5X memory exclusively, with ECC memory enabled. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 16 lanes available for the CPU.

The Intel Core 7 360 uses the Wildcat Lake codename and belongs to the Core 5 generation. It is built on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The base clock is 1.50 GHz and the boost clock reaches 4.80 GHz, with a 15 W TDP. It uses Intel BGA 1516 socket and supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory, but only in a single-channel configuration. ECC memory is not supported. The PCIe interface is Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The AMD part allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3. The Intel part uses 192 KB of L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 6 MB L3. The Intel cache-per-core figures are larger, but the total L3 cache on the AMD part is over ten times bigger. The AMD processor also has a much higher memory bandwidth rating, 273.1 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, which matters for data-intensive workloads.

Both processors have locked multipliers and are marketed for mobile segments. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $426. The AMD part has no recorded launch MSRP. The AMD processor uses part number 100-000002124, while the Intel part uses SAE3E.

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 7 360 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

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

A: The AMD processor supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Intel processor uses single-channel DDR5 or LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 360 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD part boosts to 5.20 GHz. The Intel part boosts to 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD processor supports ECC memory. The Intel processor does not support ECC memory.

Q: What process nodes are used?

A: The AMD processor is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel processor is built on a 3 nm process at Intel.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge across nearly every specification field. Core count differs at 16 cores for AMD versus 6 cores for Intel, with thread counts at 32 and 6 respectively. Base clocks are 3.10 GHz for the AMD part and 1.50 GHz for the Intel part, a 1.6 GHz gap. Boost clocks are closer but still distinct: 5.20 GHz versus 4.80 GHz.

TDP ratings show a 40 W difference, with the AMD part rated at 55 W and the Intel part at 15 W. The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. Process nodes differ by one nanometer, with AMD at 4 nm and Intel at 3 nm. The foundry also differs: TSMC for AMD, Intel for Intel.

Cache configurations are not comparable in structure. The AMD part has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 shared. The Intel part has 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB L3 shared. Memory support also differs: AMD supports only LPDDR5X, while Intel supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. Memory bus width is quad-channel for AMD and single-channel for Intel.

ECC memory is present on the AMD part but absent on the Intel part. PCIe lanes are 16 for AMD and 6 for Intel, both Gen 4. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 8065S for AMD, Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores for Intel. The AMD processor has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the Intel part has no recorded die size. Release dates are close, with the Intel part released on 2026-04-15 and the AMD part on 2026-05-19.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Direct head-to-head benchmark results are not recorded in the database, so a side-by-side comparison must rely on the available scores for the Intel Core 7 360 and the architectural data for the AMD part. The Intel processor's Cinebench R23 multicore score is 13634, and its single-core score is 1924. The PassMark multithread score is 15544, with a single-thread score of 4274. These numbers place the Intel part at the 72nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 18374.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has no recorded benchmark scores, so its percentile of 50 and average score of 0 reflect missing data rather than poor performance. The specification sheet, however, suggests a processor designed for high throughput. The 16-core, 32-thread configuration with a 5.20 GHz boost clock and 64 MB L3 cache indicates a substantial multicore capability. The quad-channel memory interface with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth removes a common bottleneck for data-heavy applications.

In single-thread performance, the Intel part's 1924 Cinebench R23 score and 4274 PassMark single-thread score show a strong per-core design. The higher base clock on the AMD part, 3.10 GHz versus 1.50 GHz, could help in single-thread tasks, but the boost clock difference is only 0.4 GHz, and the Intel part's smaller core count with higher per-core cache may compensate. The Intel part's L1 and L2 allocations per core are larger, 192 KB and 2.5 MB respectively, which can reduce latency in single-threaded loops.

For multithreaded workloads, the AMD part's core advantage is decisive. With 16 physical cores versus 6, the AMD processor can handle more concurrent threads. The 64 MB L3 cache also provides a larger working set for parallel algorithms. The Intel part's PassMark scores for specific operations give a partial picture: integer math at 34238, floating point math at 44963, data compression at 142877, data encryption at 11164, extended instructions at 12390, find prime numbers at 120, physics at 1213, and random string sorting at 17636. These figures, on a 6-core part, would likely be several times higher on a 16-core part with comparable per-core efficiency.

The memory bandwidth difference further separates the two in workloads that stream data. The AMD part's 273.1 GB/s is more than four times the Intel part's 59.7 GB/s. This affects any operation that moves large arrays, including scientific computing, video processing, and database operations. The Intel part's single-channel memory bus is a clear constraint for such tasks.

Both processors are locked, so overclocking is not a differentiator. The AMD part has a higher TDP, 55 W versus 15 W, which allows it to sustain higher clocks under load, but also implies greater cooling requirements. The Intel part's 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or low-power designs.

The database shows the Intel Core 7 360 sits near several comparable processors: the Intel Core i3-13100 with an average score of 18380, the Intel Core 5 330 at 18345, the Intel Core i3-14100 at 18318, and the Intel Core 3 305 at 18302. The Intel Core 7 360 scores 18374, placing it just below the Core i3-13100 by a negligible margin. This context indicates the Intel part performs at the level of a capable desktop-class chip despite its mobile 15 W rating.

For the AMD part, no such rival data exists in the database. Its 50th percentile ranking, based on no recorded scores, means the position is provisional. The specifications, however, show a processor with twice the cores of a typical high-end mobile part and four times the memory bandwidth of the Intel competitor. The cache hierarchy, with 64 MB L3, is also far larger than the Intel part's 6 MB. These factors point to a processor intended for professional workloads rather than general-purpose mobile use.

The release dates are separated by just over a month, with the Intel part arriving first. Both are active in production. The AMD part has no launch MSRP recorded, while the Intel part carries a launch MSRP of $426. The AMD part's part number is 100-000002124, and the Intel part's is SAE3E.