Intel Core Ultra 9 vs AMD Ryzen AI 9: Which processor holds up better in a premium laptop?

When you’ve got two laptops that look, weigh, and feel practically identical, you’re left with a rare opportunity to isolate what really counts: the processor. That’s exactly what MSI has unintentionally offered with its new Prestige 16 AI series. On one hand, we have the Intel-powered Prestige 16 AI Evo with the Core Ultra 9 285H; on the other, an almost mirror-image Prestige A16 AI+ model running AMD’s Ryzen AI 9 365. Same design, same display, same memory and storage, same cooling solution. In short, it’s an unusually clean slate to see how these two next-gen chips stack up under near-identical conditions – no brand-specific quirks or thermal bottlenecks getting in the way of a proper side-by-side.

The comparison matters, not just because these are high-end mobile processors from Intel and AMD, but because both brands are positioning them as more than just faster CPUs. With hybrid architectures now the norm, integrated GPUs capable of light gaming, and NPUs being pitched as the third pillar of modern laptop performance, the Core Ultra and Ryzen AI families aim to redefine what a premium thin-and-light machine can do in 2025. There’s the usual checklist of raw performance, efficiency, and multitasking clout – but now layered with AI-enhanced workflows, smarter power management, and the promise of better battery life without compromising capability.

What I wanted to find out is whether any of that actually adds up to a noticeable difference. Forget the checkbox features for a moment – how do these chips perform across the full range of real-world use? From gaming on integrated graphics and encoding videos, to battery longevity and thermal behaviour, this is about the complete package. AI acceleration is part of the story, sure, but not the whole of it. What matters more is how each processor handles the varied, often unpredictable demands of daily computing, and whether either one clearly pulls ahead when everything else is held constant.

In that sense, the MSI Prestige 16 AI laptops serve more as controlled testbeds and less as showpieces. With minimal variance in hardware, every nuance in performance – whether it’s frame rates in a quick session of Cyberpunk 2077, rendering times in HandBrake, or how long it takes to generate an AI image – can be attributed to the CPU platforms. Intel’s Arrow Lake architecture, with its chiplet design and integrated Arc graphics, has a lot riding on its ability to scale across workloads while staying efficient. AMD, on the other hand, is banking on its third-generation NPU and stronger integrated GPU performance, especially in titles that lean heavily on shading throughput and memory bandwidth. Both claim leadership in their own ways, but only one can claim the better balance when you factor in not just headline performance, but how the machine feels to use over time – on battery, plugged in, idling, and everything in between. That’s the lens through which this comparison is being made.

With that in mind, I put both laptops through a full round of testing across real-world workloads, gaming scenarios, and battery endurance trials. Here are the results:

AI workloads (Procyon benchmarks)

While both chips are branded as “AI-ready” and come with onboard NPUs, their real-world performance across AI workloads reveals clear differences in how those capabilities are implemented. In Procyon’s AI Text Generation test, the results were split – AMD’s Ryzen AI 9 365 was far ahead on LLAMA 2 (which is Meta's open-source large language model designed to tackle text and chat contextualisation), but Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285H clawed back wins on LLAMA 3.1, Mistral 7B (an LLM designed for coding and English language handling), and especially Phi 3.5 (an LLM by Microsoft to understand language and reasoning), where it delivered over three times the throughput of the competition.

That pattern continued in image-based workloads too. In Microsoft’s Windows ML AI Image Generation test, Intel finished significantly ahead, scoring 123 versus AMD’s 82 using their respective runtimes (OpenVino and ONNX). The gap was even starker in Stable Diffusion 1.5 FP16, where Intel completed the run in under five minutes – almost three minutes faster than AMD. Taken together, these results suggest that while AMD may shine in certain natural language models, Intel appears better optimised for a wider range of AI workloads, particularly those involving image generation. It also reinforces that AI performance today isn’t dictated by hardware alone – driver maturity, software stack integration, and model-specific optimisations all play a major role in determining who comes out on top. We've had a closer look at how Intel's AI software stack works alongside its hardware, as well as how Intel is ushering AI into the cloud, the edge, and empowering developers. This is probably the first time we've had a chance to perform as level a head-on comparison as possible, and it shows how Intel's investment and approach to AI is working to its advantage.

Taken as a whole, I'd say the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H edges out AMD’s Ryzen AI 9 365 in this round of AI-focused benchmarks. While AMD put up a strong showing in LLAMA 2, Intel's consistent wins across newer language models and its clear advantage in image generation workloads like Stable Diffusion suggest a more mature and broadly capable AI implementation. The performance gap wasn’t just marginal in some cases – in fact, it was substantial, especially where Intel’s optimised runtimes like OpenVino came into play. If you're looking to tap into on-device AI for a mix of creative and productivity tasks, then Intel currently offers the more well-rounded experience.

Winner: Intel

Gaming performance

In gaming, the results were more mixed and heavily dependent on the title and resolution tested. Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285H led in Total War: Warhammer III across both 1080p and the default 1600p resolutions, posting a solid 62fps in the former resolution, compared to AMD’s 47fps. The gains here likely stem from stronger driver optimisation or better scaling under CPU-intensive RTS workloads. In contrast, Shadow of the Tomb Raider showed negligible differences between the two – both CPUs hovered around the 40fps mark at 1080p and dipped just slightly at 1600p. This suggests neither the Arc or Radeon 880M is particularly tuned for heavier AAA rendering at higher resolutions.

However, in Cyberpunk 2077, the AMD iGPU delivered a decisive blow thanks to its superior FSR upscaler over Intel's XeSS: 79fps at 1080p and 43fps at 1600p, against Intel’s 47fps and 36fps. That’s a significant win in one of the most demanding games on the test bench. So depending on what you play and at what resolution, either chip could have the edge; Intel clearly flexes harder when the GPU is pushed but AMD’s Radeon 880M has the upper hand in upscaling where FSR is supported – and there are quite a lot these days.

Winner: AMD

Productivity and Content Creation

When it comes to general productivity and real-world performance, Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285H consistently posted higher scores across all categories in my favourite real-world benchmark, SysMark 30. It led in advanced content creation, photo editing, office applications, and general productivity, with margins ranging from moderate to substantial, and reflects Intel’s strength in workloads that lean on balanced CPU, GPU, and media engine coordination.

However, AMD struck back in the dedicated HandBrake video encoding test, completing the export nearly a full minute faster than Intel. This suggests that AMD’s chip has a slight edge in sustained multi-threaded CPU performance under pure encoding loads, likely due to its more conventional high-core-count monolithic design. That said, when looking at the broader scope of everyday tasks – from office work to content creation – Intel clearly pulled ahead. 

Winner: Intel

Battery Life and Power Efficiency

Last but not least: Battery life performance and power efficiency.

This is one area where Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285H pulls far ahead – by a margin that’s hard to ignore. In the MobileMark 30 test, the Intel-powered MSI Swift 16 AI Evo lasted 15 hours on a single charge, compared to just under 9 hours from its AMD-based counterpart. Granted that the Intel system has 20% more battery capacity, the resulting battery uptime difference is far more than the battery capacity discrepancy. To showcase this even more clearly, we decided to peer into power efficiency and here too, Intel has a significant lead: Intel drew just 6W on average during the test, whereas AMD pulled over 9W.

That power disparity isn’t limited to light usage. Under full CPU load in CineBench R23, Intel’s chip peaked at 112W and 105 degree Celsius, compared to AMD’s far leaner 50W draw and lower 78 degree Celsius. Clearly, the Intel-powered laptop consumed more power and generated more heat when pushed, but it also demonstrated that it can scale down effectively during light or mixed-use scenarios. AMD, meanwhile, appears more thermally conservative across the board, but pays for it with higher draw even during idle or low-load use. The end result? Intel delivers dramatically longer battery life, especially in real-world balanced workflows, though it comes at the cost of higher peak thermals and power spikes under load.

Winner: Intel

Final thoughts

After putting both processors through a thorough and wide-ranging set of benchmarks, it’s clear that Intel’s Core Ultra 9 285H offers the more complete package for the modern ultraportable laptop. Its advantage in battery life is undisputed, and it consistently outperforms in general productivity and AI-assisted tasks – two areas that increasingly define the modern performance laptop experience. While AMD’s Ryzen AI 9 365 shows flashes of strength, particularly in gaming and video encoding, it doesn’t quite close the gap when viewed from a broader, all-rounder perspective. If you're trying to decide between these two platforms today, I'd say Intel’s mobile processor delivers a better balance of performance, efficiency, and usability – making it the easier recommendation of this generation.