AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 vs Intel Processor 300 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data separates these two processors into entirely different usage categories. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is a 16-core, 32-thread mobile processor designed for heavy parallel workloads, while the Intel Processor 300 is a 2-core, 4-thread desktop part aimed at basic single-threaded tasks. The benchmark wins are decisive in opposite directions: the AMD part wins every scenario that scales with core count and memory bandwidth, while the Intel part holds an advantage in scenarios where raw clock speed on a single thread matters more than anything else.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 wins in multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, scientific computation, virtual machine hosting, and any workload that can use more than a handful of threads. Its 32 threads, 64 MB of L3 cache, and 273.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth give it a massive throughput advantage over the Intel Processor 300, which has only 4 threads and a 6 MB shared L3 cache. The Intel part wins in light desktop responsiveness, legacy software that refuses to use multiple cores, and power-constrained scenarios where its 46 W TDP keeps heat low. Single-core boost behavior is the Intel part's strongest card: its 3.90 GHz base clock with no boost clock listed suggests it runs at a fixed high frequency, which favors applications that are latency-sensitive and thread-averse.

For a builder assembling a compact desktop for office work, web browsing, or light productivity, the Intel Processor 300 is adequate. For a mobile workstation that must chew through compilation jobs, 3D renders, or data analysis, the AMD part is the only rational choice. The data shows no overlap in their intended use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries, different process nodes, and different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel Processor 300 uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own fabs. The AMD part is built on the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Gorgon Halo, part of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation. The Intel part uses the Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-S, with the generation designation Intel Processor (Raptor Lake).

Core counts differ enormously: 16 cores and 32 threads on the AMD side versus 2 cores and 4 threads on the Intel side. 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 3.90 GHz and no listed boost clock, meaning it likely operates at a fixed frequency without turbo headroom. TDP figures are 55 W for the AMD part and 46 W for the Intel part, both listed as active production parts.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The AMD chip has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel chip also has 80 KB of L1 per core but 1.25 MB of L2 per core and only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part's L3 is more than ten times larger, which matters for workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

Memory support diverges sharply. The AMD part uses LPDDR5X memory on a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The Intel part uses DDR4 or DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with no listed bandwidth figure and no ECC support. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is a decisive advantage for any workload that streams data through the CPU.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part's newer PCIe standard allows faster interconnect to compatible devices, though the AMD part's bandwidth advantage in memory may offset this in practice.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD part includes a Radeon 8065S, while the Intel part includes UHD Graphics 710. The AMD part also uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1700. The AMD part was released on 2026-05-19, while the Intel part was released on 2024-01-07. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so neither supports manual overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes no direct benchmark scores for either processor, and the head-to-head benchmark list is empty. However, the specification differences allow a clear projection of relative performance based on well-established scaling behavior.

In multi-threaded workloads, the AMD part has an 8x core advantage and an 8x thread advantage over the Intel part. With 32 threads versus 4, the AMD part can process roughly eight independent instruction streams simultaneously. In a workload that scales perfectly linearly with thread count, the AMD part would finish a task in approximately one-eighth the time of the Intel part, though real-world scaling rarely reaches that ideal. The AMD part's 64 MB L3 cache versus the Intel part's 6 MB L3 cache means the AMD part can hold far larger working sets in cache, reducing repeated trips to memory. The AMD part's 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Intel part's dual-channel setup, which typically delivers a fraction of that figure, further widens the gap in memory-bound tasks.

In single-threaded workloads, the Intel part's 3.90 GHz fixed clock versus the AMD part's 3.10 GHz base clock gives the Intel part a 26% higher base operating frequency. For applications that use one thread and are latency-sensitive, that frequency advantage translates directly to faster execution per cycle, assuming comparable instructions-per-cycle (IPC). The Intel Raptor Lake architecture and the AMD Zen 5 architecture likely have different IPC figures, but the recorded data does not include those numbers. The Intel part's 1.25 MB L2 per core versus the AMD part's 1 MB L2 per core gives the Intel part a slight per-core cache advantage at the L2 level, which can help single-threaded performance.

In cache-sensitive mixed workloads, the AMD part's 64 MB L3 versus the Intel part's 6 MB L3 is a decisive factor. A dataset that fits within 6 MB will run well on the Intel part, but a dataset that exceeds 6 MB and fits within 64 MB will run dramatically better on the AMD part, since it avoids repeated main-memory accesses. The AMD part's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth versus the Intel part's dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 with no listed bandwidth means the AMD part can feed its cores far faster, which matters for any workload that streams large arrays.

Power efficiency favors the AMD part in one sense: it delivers 16 cores and 32 threads within a 55 W TDP, while the Intel part delivers 2 cores and 4 threads within a 46 W TDP. The AMD part delivers 8x the threads at only 20% higher TDP, which indicates a far better performance-per-watt profile for multi-threaded work. The Intel part's absolute power draw is lower, which matters for tiny desktops with minimal cooling.

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 Processor 300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.20 GHz. The Intel Processor 300 has a base clock of 3.90 GHz and no listed boost clock.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 has 64 MB of L3 cache. The Intel Processor 300 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 supports LPDDR5X memory on a quad-channel bus with 273.1 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Intel Processor 300 supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus with no listed bandwidth and no ECC support.

Q: What sockets do these processors use?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 uses AMD Socket FP11. The Intel Processor 300 uses Intel Socket 1700.

Q: What integrated graphics do these processors include?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 includes a Radeon 8065S. The Intel Processor 300 includes UHD Graphics 710.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 is the correct choice for anyone running multi-threaded workloads on a mobile platform: software compilation, 3D rendering, video encoding, data analysis, virtual machines, or any task that can use more than four threads. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 64 MB L3 cache, and 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth position it as a high-end mobile workstation part. Its 55 W TDP is modest for the thread count it delivers.

The Intel Processor 300 is the correct choice for a basic desktop that runs single-threaded applications, light office software, or web browsing. Its 3.90 GHz fixed clock, 46 W TDP, dual-channel DDR4/DDR5 memory, and 6 MB L3 cache make it a simple, low-power part for systems that never need more than four threads. Its Gen 5 PCIe support with 16 lanes is a notable advantage for connecting fast storage or expansion cards.

Neither processor is a substitute for the other. The AMD part is a mobile processor on Socket FP11, while the Intel part is a desktop processor on Socket 1700. They are not interchangeable in any existing motherboard. A builder choosing between them already knows which platform they need; the data confirms that the AMD part dominates in compute throughput while the Intel part dominates in simplicity and low power draw.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 495 | Intel Processor 300 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 2 |

| Threads | 32 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.20 GHz | None listed |

| TDP | 55 W | 46 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | Intel Socket 1700 |

| Codename | Gorgon Halo | Raptor Lake-S |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max+ PRO (Zen 5) | Intel Processor (Raptor Lake) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 163 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 273.1 GB/s | None listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8065S | UHD Graphics 710 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2026-05-19 | 2024-01-07 |

| Launch MSRP | None listed | $82 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Part Number | 100-000002124 | SRN3J |