AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a full benchmark profile for the AMD Ryzen 3 30, but no recorded measurements for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485. This makes a direct score-for-score comparison impossible at this time. The Ryzen 3 30's average benchmark score of 20,137 places it at the 74th percentile of all CPUs in the database, with a set of nearest rivals that cluster tightly around its performance level. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165U (average score 20,249) sits 0.6% higher, while the Intel Core i7-9700K (20,271) is 0.7% ahead. On the other side, the AMD EPYC 7713P (20,024) trails by 0.6%, and the Intel Core i7-11800H (19,998) trails by 0.7%. The Ryzen 3 30 effectively sits in a four-way statistical tie with those processors, all within a 1.4% spread.

Looking at the Ryzen 3 30's individual PassMark results, the strongest relative performance appears in data compression, with a score of 135,834. This figure dwarfs its other integer-heavy results and suggests the processor's architecture handles compression workloads efficiently relative to its other tasks. The single-thread score of 2,465 provides a baseline for lightly threaded work, while the multithread score of 9,027 reflects the 4-core, 8-thread configuration. Integer math scores 29,846, floating-point math scores 14,448, and random string sorting scores 14,431. Extended instructions score 6,075, and data encryption scores 6,461. The find prime numbers test returns a notably low 20, which may indicate a weakness in that specific workload pattern.

Since the Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has no benchmark entries in the database, the head-to-head comparison must rely on architectural specifications and the known percentile positioning. The Ryzen 3 30 holds a 74th percentile rank against all CPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 holds only a 50th percentile rank. That ranking is based on the database's overall classification, not on measured performance, because the AI Max PRO's average score is listed as zero. The percentile field appears to be a separate classification from the benchmark average, and the data does not explain the discrepancy. What the record does show is that the AI Max PRO 485 has double the cores (8 versus 4), double the threads (16 versus 8), a higher base clock (3.60 GHz versus 2.40 GHz), and a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz versus 4.10 GHz). These specifications strongly suggest a higher performance ceiling, but without measured scores, the database cannot quantify the advantage.

The Verdict

The data presents an incomplete picture. The Ryzen 3 30 has a full set of benchmark results, a well-defined average score, and a percentile rank that places it among mainstream mobile processors. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has no recorded benchmarks, no average score, and a percentile rank that appears inconsistent with its high-end specifications. From the available information, the AI Max PRO 485 should deliver substantially higher performance in multi-threaded workloads due to its 8-core, 16-thread configuration and significantly higher clock speeds. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is 22% higher than the Ryzen 3 30's 4.10 GHz boost, and its 3.60 GHz base clock is 50% higher than the Ryzen 3 30's 2.40 GHz base. The L3 cache difference is also stark: 32 MB shared versus 4 MB shared, an 8x increase. The memory subsystem favors the AI Max PRO 485 as well, with quad-channel LPDDR5X support and 273.1 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel LPDDR5 at 88.0 GB/s.

For users deciding between these two processors, the Ryzen 3 30 is the only one with demonstrated benchmark results. Its 74th percentile ranking and tight grouping with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U, Intel Core i7-9700K, AMD EPYC 7713P, and Intel Core i7-11800H indicate it is a capable 4-core mobile chip for mainstream tasks. The AI Max PRO 485, by specification alone, targets a higher performance tier. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, 32 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory all point to a processor designed for demanding multi-threaded and memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The database does not yet contain the measurements to confirm this, so the verdict must be provisional: the AI Max PRO 485 should win in multi-core and memory-heavy scenarios, while the Ryzen 3 30's benchmark profile shows it as a balanced entry-level mobile option.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in their underlying designs. The Ryzen 3 30 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process node with a die size of 100 mm². The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Gorgon Halo codename, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process node with a die size of 70.6 mm². The smaller die on a more advanced process node, combined with double the core count, indicates a significantly different transistor layout and power delivery design.

Cache organization differs substantially. 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 PRO 485 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The per-core L2 doubling and the 8x increase in shared L3 suggest the AI Max PRO 485 is built for workloads that benefit from larger working sets residing on-chip.

Memory support diverges in type and width. The Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5 over a dual-channel interface with 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel interface with 273.1 GB/s of bandwidth, a 3.1x increase. The AI Max PRO 485 also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 3 30 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Ryzen 3 30 provides Gen 3 with 4 CPU lanes, while the AI Max PRO 485 provides Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes. The integrated graphics differ, with the Ryzen 3 30 using the Radeon 610M and the AI Max PRO 485 using the Radeon 8050S.

The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FT6 for the Ryzen 3 30 and AMD Socket FP11 for the AI Max PRO 485. Both are mobile processors, both are actively in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ by roughly eight months, with the Ryzen 3 30 dated September 2025 and the AI Max PRO 485 dated May 2026.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 boosts to 4.10 GHz.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, an eightfold increase.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 3 30 does not.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 supports 88.0 GB/s over dual-channel LPDDR5. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 supports 273.1 GB/s over quad-channel LPDDR5X.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 uses TSMC's 6 nm process with a 100 mm² die. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 uses TSMC's 4 nm process with a 70.6 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 3 30's benchmark data shows strengths in specific workload categories relative to its own average. Its data compression score of 135,834 is exceptionally high, indicating a strong showing for that workload type. Single-thread performance at 2,465 and multithread performance at 9,027 provide a balanced profile for a 4-core mobile chip. The 74th percentile ranking and the near-identical scores of its nearest rivals (all within 0.7%) show that the Ryzen 3 30 performs in a well-established tier of mainstream processors. It would be the appropriate choice for users who need a proven, measured mobile processor for everyday tasks, light productivity, and workloads where compression efficiency matters.

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 wins on paper in every major specification category. Its 8 cores and 16 threads give it a theoretical multi-threading advantage. The 32 MB L3 cache, 273.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, and quad-channel LPDDR5X support point to strengths in data-intensive workloads, large dataset manipulation, and applications that benefit from high memory throughput. The 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide more expansion and I/O headroom than the Ryzen 3 30's 4 Gen 3 lanes. The Radeon 8050S integrated graphics likely offer stronger graphical performance than the Radeon 610M, though the database does not include graphics benchmarks. For users prioritizing multi-threaded compute, memory bandwidth, or ECC reliability, the AI Max PRO 485 is the clear specification-based winner.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 30 | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 485 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FT6 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Mendocino | Gorgon Halo |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 4 nm |

| Die Size | 100 mm² | 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5 | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.0 GB/s | 273.1 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 4 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 610M | Radeon 8050S |

| Part Number | unknown | 100-000002144 |