AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a matchup between two very different mobile processors from AMD, separated by a wide performance gap. The data shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with the Ryzen 3 30 trailing by significant margins across all workloads. The Ryzen 3 30, a Mendocino part with Zen 2 cores, holds a 74th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, a Strix Halo part with Zen 5 cores, sits in the 96th percentile. The average benchmark score for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is 90541, compared to 20137 for the Ryzen 3 30, a difference that reflects the fundamental architectural and specification gap between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 dominates the Ryzen 3 30 in every recorded PassMark test. In single-thread performance, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3927 against the Ryzen 3 30's 2465, a 37.2% advantage. This is the smallest relative gap in the entire comparison, yet it still represents a substantial lead in per-core speed. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz, compared to 4.10 GHz on the Ryzen 3 30, contributes directly to this result.

Moving to multi-threaded workloads, the gap widens dramatically. In the PassMark multithread test, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45231, while the Ryzen 3 30 manages 9027, an 80% deficit for the smaller chip. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 12 cores and 24 threads, against the Ryzen 3 30's 4 cores and 8 threads, explain this massive difference. Integer math shows a similar pattern: the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 152414, the Ryzen 3 30 scores 29846, an 80.4% gap. Floating-point math follows suit, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 posting 99548 versus 14448 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 85.5% difference.

Data compression and encryption tests reveal the largest absolute gaps. In data compression, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 554760, while the Ryzen 3 30 scores 135834, a 75.5% difference. Data encryption shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 27784 and the Ryzen 3 30 at 6461, a 76.7% gap. Extended instruction workloads, which leverage the newer Zen 5 architecture, show the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scoring 45666 against the Ryzen 3 30's 6075, an 86.7% deficit. The prime number finding test is the most lopsided: the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 320, the Ryzen 3 30 scores 20, a 93.7% gap that highlights the raw computational power difference.

Random string sorting, a memory and cache intensive workload, shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scoring 59487 versus 14431 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 75.7% difference. Physics calculations, which often stress both CPU and memory subsystems, give the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 a score of 2887 against the Ryzen 3 30's 436, an 84.9% gap. Across all 11 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins outright, with no single test where the Ryzen 3 30 closes the gap to under 37%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows no workload category where the Ryzen 3 30 outperforms the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. The wins are exclusively with the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, which leads in every test category. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's largest relative advantages appear in extended instructions, floating-point math, and prime number finding, all of which benefit from the newer Zen 5 core design and higher clock speeds. The Ryzen 3 30, with its Zen 2 architecture, cannot match these results.

For single-threaded tasks, such as light productivity or basic web browsing, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 still holds a 37.2% lead, meaning even tasks that rely on per-core speed favor the larger chip. The Ryzen 3 30's 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for low-load scenarios, but the data shows no scenario where its scores exceed those of the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. The Ryzen 3 30's 74th percentile ranking places it among mid-range CPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 96th percentile ranking places it near the top of the database.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 654, with an average score of 90717 and a delta of -0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, with an average score of 91199 and a delta of -0.7%. The Ryzen 3 30's nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U, with an average score of 20249 and a delta of -0.6%, and the AMD EPYC 7713P, with an average score of 20024 and a delta of 0.6%. These comparisons show that both chips sit within a narrow band of similarly performing processors, but that band is far apart: the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's average score is roughly 4.5 times higher than the Ryzen 3 30's.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two processors is substantial. The Ryzen 3 30 uses the Zen 2 architecture, specifically the Mendocino codename, fabricated on a 6 nm process node by TSMC. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codename Strix Halo, on a 4 nm process node, also from TSMC. The newer process node allows for higher clock speeds and improved power efficiency. The Ryzen 3 30 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 operates at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Core and thread counts differ significantly: the Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Cache configurations also diverge. The Ryzen 3 30 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 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 16x difference in L3 cache capacity provides a major advantage in workloads that benefit from large working sets.

Memory support is another key difference. The Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. This nearly 3x bandwidth advantage helps the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 in memory-intensive applications. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 3 30 does not.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the Ryzen 3 30 uses the Radeon 610M, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Radeon 8060S. PCIe support also differs, with the Ryzen 3 30 offering Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only) and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 offering Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 3 30 uses the AMD Socket FT6, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the AMD Socket FP11. The Ryzen 3 30 has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a TDP of 55 watts, reflecting the larger power envelope of the higher-performance part. The die size for the Ryzen 3 30 is 100 mm², while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a dual-die design with 2x 70.6 mm².

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score in the PassMark benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3927 in the single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 scores 2465. This gives the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 a 37.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core performance?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45231 in the PassMark multithread test, while the Ryzen 3 30 scores 9027. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 leads by 80%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 3 30 does not.

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

A: The Ryzen 3 30 provides 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth with dual-channel LPDDR5 memory. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 provides 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth with quad-channel LPDDR5X memory.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 3 30 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3 30 in every recorded test, with no exceptions. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 96th percentile ranking, average score of 90541, and 12-core/24-thread configuration place it in a different performance class entirely from the Ryzen 3 30, which sits at the 74th percentile with an average score of 20137.

Users who need maximum computational throughput, large memory bandwidth, or extensive cache should choose the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. Its quad-channel memory, 64 MB L3 cache, and Zen 5 architecture deliver the highest scores across all workload types. The Ryzen 3 30, with its 15-watt TDP, 4 cores, and Zen 2 architecture, is a far more modest part. It may suffice for basic tasks, but the data shows it cannot compete with the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 in any benchmark category.

The Ryzen 3 30's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U and Intel Core i7-9700K, have average scores around 20249 and 20271 respectively, which are close to the Ryzen 3 30's 20137. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's nearest rivals, including the Intel Xeon 654 and AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, post scores near 90717 and 91199, closely matching the Ryzen AI Max+ 392's 90541. These comparisons confirm that both chips are competitive within their own performance tiers, but those tiers are far apart. The Ryzen 3 30 is a low-power, entry-level mobile processor, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a high-performance mobile part that rivals desktop-class CPUs. The choice depends entirely on the performance requirements of the task at hand.