AMD Ryzen 3 110 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database has recorded benchmark data for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, while the AMD Ryzen 3 110 currently has no recorded benchmark scores. This absence means the comparison relies entirely on the measured performance of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and its position relative to other processors.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 achieves an average benchmark score of 90,541, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. This is a top-tier result, indicating that the processor outperforms roughly 96% of all recorded CPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the Intel Xeon 654 with an average score of 90,717 (a delta of -0.2% relative to the Ryzen AI Max+ 392), the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX with 91,199 (delta of -0.7%), the Intel Xeon w7-2575X with 88,172 (delta of 2.7%), and the Intel Xeon 6736P with 87,864 (delta of 3%).

These delta values show that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 654 and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, trailing them by less than a single percentage point. Against the Intel Xeon w7-2575X and Intel Xeon 6736P, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 leads by 2.7% and 3.0% respectively. The data indicates a processor that sits at the very top of the performance spectrum, with only marginal differences separating it from the closest competitors.

Within the individual PassMark subtests, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 shows particular strengths in data compression, scoring 554,760, and integer math, scoring 152,414. The floating point math score is 99,548, while random string sorting reaches 59,487. Extended instructions score 45,666, and data encryption reaches 27,784. The multithread score is 45,231, while the single-thread score is 3,927. The physics score is 2,887, and the find prime numbers score is 320.

Because the Ryzen 3 110 has no benchmark scores, there are no head-to-head wins recorded for either processor. The wins count is zero for both. This is a direct consequence of incomplete data for the lower-end chip, not a reflection of its expected capabilities.

FAQ

Q: How does the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 compare to its closest rivals in the database?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 90,541 on average, which is 0.2% below the Intel Xeon 654, 0.7% below the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, 2.7% above the Intel Xeon w7-2575X, and 3.0% above the Intel Xeon 6736P.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392?

A: It ranks in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning it performs better than approximately 96% of all recorded processors.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 110 have any recorded benchmark scores?

A: No, the database contains no benchmark entries for the Ryzen 3 110. Its average benchmark score is recorded as zero, and it has no nearest rivals listed.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of the two processors?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Ryzen 3 110 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 3 110 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural generations. The Ryzen 3 110 uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt-R, belonging to the Ryzen 3 generation. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo, belonging to the Ryzen AI Max generation.

The manufacturing process differs significantly. The Ryzen 3 110 is built on a 6 nm process node, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a 4 nm process node. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the smaller node for the flagship part allows for denser transistor packing and potentially higher efficiency.

The die size and layout differ notably. The Ryzen 3 110 has a single die measuring 210 mm², while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a dual-die configuration with each die measuring 70.6 mm², for a total of two separate 70.6 mm² dies. This chiplet approach is typical for higher-core-count parts.

Cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Ryzen 3 110 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The L3 cache difference is substantial: 64 MB versus 8 MB, an eightfold increase.

Memory support differs at the protocol level. The Ryzen 3 110 supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus, delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen 3 110 includes a Radeon 660M, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 includes a Radeon 8060S. The database does not provide further specification details for these graphics units.

Specification Differences

The socket types are different: the Ryzen 3 110 uses AMD Socket FP7, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11. This means they are not physically interchangeable in a system.

Core and thread counts differ: the Ryzen 3 110 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This is a threefold difference in core count and thread count.

Clock speeds differ: the Ryzen 3 110 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The flagship part is faster at both ends of the frequency range.

Thermal design power differs: the Ryzen 3 110 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a TDP of 55 watts. The higher TDP reflects the greater core count and clock speeds of the larger chip.

PCIe support differs: the Ryzen 3 110 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 3 110 offers more PCIe lanes despite being the lower-tier part.

Memory bus width differs: the Ryzen 3 110 uses dual-channel memory, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses quad-channel memory. This directly contributes to the bandwidth difference of 76.8 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s.

The part numbers are distinct: the Ryzen 3 110 has part number 100-000000549 (FP7r2), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has part number 100-000001979.

Release dates differ: the Ryzen 3 110 was released on 2025-09-30, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 was released on 2026-01-05. The Ryzen 3 110 is the earlier release.

Both processors are marked as active in production, both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment (both false), and both target the mobile market segment.

The Verdict

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two processors. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a high-end part with recorded benchmark scores that place it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. It has 12 cores, 24 threads, a 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 64 MB of L3 cache. Its average benchmark score of 90,541 puts it in direct competition with server-class Intel Xeon processors and the top-tier AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX.

The Ryzen 3 110 is a lower-tier mobile processor with 4 cores, 8 threads, a 4.30 GHz boost clock, and 8 MB of L3 cache. Its TDP of 28 watts is roughly half that of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, suggesting a focus on efficiency rather than raw performance. The absence of recorded benchmark scores prevents a direct numerical comparison, but the specification differences indicate a substantial gap in compute capacity.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a newer 4 nm process versus the 6 nm process of the Ryzen 3 110, and its quad-channel LPDDR5X memory provides more than triple the bandwidth of the Ryzen 3 110's dual-channel DDR5. The larger L3 cache, higher core count, and faster clocks all point to a processor designed for demanding workloads.

The Ryzen 3 110, with its lower TDP and fewer cores, is positioned for more modest usage scenarios. Its 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes exceed those of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, which has 16 lanes, indicating a different I/O configuration priority. The smaller die size of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's dual-die setup (70.6 mm² per die) versus the Ryzen 3 110's single 210 mm² die reflects the different manufacturing approaches for the two parts.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in every measured benchmark category, as it is the only one with recorded scores. Its strengths are particularly pronounced in data compression (554,760) and integer math (152,414), where the high core count and large cache likely contribute to the strong results. The multithread score of 45,231 and floating point math score of 99,548 further confirm its suitability for parallel workloads.

For single-thread performance, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 records a score of 3,927. This is the category where the Ryzen 3 110, with its lower boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, would likely be at a disadvantage, though no direct data exists for the Ryzen 3 110.

The Ryzen 3 110, based on its specifications, is positioned for efficiency-conscious mobile designs. Its 28-watt TDP, 4 cores, and 8 threads make it suitable for lightweight tasks such as basic productivity, web browsing, and office applications. The dual-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for such workloads, while the 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide flexibility for storage and peripheral connectivity.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, with its 55-watt TDP, 12 cores, and 24 threads, is intended for high-performance mobile workstations or gaming laptops. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 64 MB L3 cache support data-intensive applications like video editing, 3D rendering, and scientific computing. The Radeon 8060S integrated graphics likely provide substantial graphical capability, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks.

In terms of market position, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits at the 96th percentile, while the Ryzen 3 110 sits at the 50th percentile. This percentile difference, combined with the lack of benchmark data for the Ryzen 3 110, confirms that the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the clear performance leader in this pairing. The Ryzen 3 110 serves a different purpose entirely, aimed at systems where power consumption and cost are prioritized over raw compute throughput.