AMD EPYC 4585PX vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. Across every recorded workload in the comparison set, the AMD EPYC 4585PX posts the higher score, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 trailing in all 11 head-to-head tests. The smallest margin comes in single-threaded performance, where the EPYC leads by 15.6%, scoring 4538 against the Ryzen AI Max+'s 3927 in Passmark's single-thread test. That gap is substantial in itself, but it is the multi-core and specialized workloads where the EPYC truly runs away.

The largest relative victory for the EPYC 4585PX appears in Passmark's physics test, where it scores 6612 versus the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 2887, a delta of 129%. This workload heavily rewards the EPYC's higher core count and thread count, and the result is a more than doubling of the score. Data encryption shows a 70% advantage for the EPYC, with 47224 points against 27784. Prime number finding follows closely at 70.9%, with scores of 547 and 320 respectively. These are workloads that scale with raw integer throughput and parallel execution, areas where the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads clearly dominate the Ryzen AI Max+'s 12 cores and 24 threads.

Integer math is another decisive EPYC win, scoring 248563 against 152414, a 63.1% margin. Random string sorting shows a 60.1% lead, with 95210 versus 59487. Data compression follows at 59.5%, with 884774 against 554760. Floating-point math gives the EPYC a 53.9% advantage, 153219 versus 99548. Extended instruction test results show a 52.1% lead for the EPYC, 69457 against 45666. Finally, the Passmark multithread score, a broad measure of parallel capability, shows the EPYC ahead by 52.3%, with 68908 versus 45231.

These numbers are not close. The EPYC 4585PX does not just win; it wins by margins ranging from 15.6% to 129% depending on the workload. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, while a capable mobile processor, cannot match the server-class EPYC in any measured metric here. The data shows a consistent, workload-independent performance hierarchy.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. For any task where the EPYC 4585PX and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 are the only two options, the EPYC is the superior performer in every tested category. The EPYC wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons, and its average benchmark score of 99324 places it at the 97th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, with an average score of 90541, sits at the 96th percentile. While both are top-tier processors, the EPYC holds a clear performance advantage.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the EPYC 4585PX's average score is 0.8% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX (98504), 1.9% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D (97453), 1.7% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX (101041), and 2.9% behind the AMD EPYC 7513 (102244). The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 654 (90717), 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91199), 2.7% ahead of the Intel Xeon w7-2575X (88172), and 3% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6736P (87864).

The verdict is straightforward. If the workload demands maximum multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 4585PX is the clear choice. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and higher clock speeds deliver a decisive edge across all parallel workloads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, with its lower core count and lower power envelope, cannot keep pace in any of the measured benchmarks. The data does not support a scenario where the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4585PX wins in every benchmark category recorded. This is not a case of one processor being better for certain tasks and the other for others; the EPYC dominates all of them. For server and workstation workloads that rely on multi-threaded performance, such as data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and integer math, the EPYC's lead is substantial, ranging from 52.3% to 129%. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, make it a formidable choice for high-throughput computing.

Even in single-threaded performance, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 might be expected to compete given its Zen 5 architecture, the EPYC holds a 15.6% advantage. This is largely due to the EPYC's higher base clock of 4.30 GHz and boost clock of 5.70 GHz, compared to the Ryzen AI Max+'s 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The EPYC's higher clock speeds translate directly into a win even in lightly-threaded tasks.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its strengths lie in its mobile market segment, with a 55 W TDP, a quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and integrated Radeon 8060S graphics. These features are not reflected in the CPU benchmark scores, which focus on processor compute. For a user prioritizing raw CPU compute, the data shows the EPYC is the only logical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 4585PX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in any benchmark?

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark physics test, where the EPYC 4585PX scores 6612 against the Ryzen AI Max+'s 2887, a 129% advantage.

Q: How does the single-threaded performance compare?

A: The EPYC 4585PX scores 4538 in the Passmark single-thread test, which is 15.6% higher than the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's score of 3927.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The EPYC 4585PX uses dual-channel DDR5 with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption of each processor?

A: The EPYC 4585PX has a TDP of 170 W, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a much lower TDP of 55 W.

Q: How many benchmark comparisons did each processor win?

A: The EPYC 4585PX won all 11 head-to-head benchmarks against the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, which won none.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common foundation: both are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture and manufactured on a 4nm process at TSMC. Both use a dual-chiplet design with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². This shared lineage means the core architecture and instruction set are fundamentally similar.

The key differences lie in their packaging, configuration, and market positioning. The EPYC 4585PX is a server/workstation part from the EPYC 4005 series, codenamed Grado, and it uses the AMD Socket AM5. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz. Its TDP is 170 W. The cache hierarchy includes 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a large 128 MB of L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The EPYC provides 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and includes integrated Radeon Graphics.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, codenamed Strix Halo, is a mobile processor from the Ryzen AI Max series. It uses the AMD Socket FP11. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Its TDP is significantly lower at 55 W. The cache setup is similar at the L1 and L2 levels (80 KB and 1 MB per core), but the L3 cache is 64 MB shared, half the EPYC's capacity. Memory support is quad-channel LPDDR5X with a much higher bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s, and it also supports ECC memory. The PCIe implementation is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Its integrated graphics are the Radeon 8060S.

These architectural differences directly explain the benchmark results. The EPYC's higher core count, larger L3 cache, and higher clock speeds drive its multi-threaded dominance. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's strengths are in memory bandwidth and integrated graphics, which are not captured in these CPU-specific compute benchmarks. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $699, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's launch MSRP is not recorded. Both processors are currently active in production, with the EPYC released in 2025 and the Ryzen AI Max+ in 2026.