AMD Ryzen 5 150 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data separates these two AMD mobile processors into entirely different performance classes. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with no test going to the Ryzen 5 150. The average benchmark score tells the story: the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 records 90,541 points versus 34,881 for the Ryzen 5 150, placing the former in the 96th percentile of all CPUs while the latter sits in the 84th percentile.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the choice for workloads that demand heavy parallel processing. Its multithread score of 45,231 is 61.3% higher than the Ryzen 5 150's 17,492. Physics simulation shows the largest gap, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scoring 2,887 versus 806, a 72.1% difference. Integer math follows a similar pattern: 152,414 against 62,151, a 59.2% advantage. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 also leads in single-thread performance at 3,927 points versus 3,155, a 19.7% margin, so even lightly threaded applications prefer it.

The Ryzen 5 150 still serves a specific role. Its 35-watt TDP, smaller die size of 210 mm², and dual-channel memory bus make it a more compact, less demanding option for systems where power and physical footprint matter more than raw throughput. The data shows it competes closely with Intel Xeon 6349P (34,890 average score, 0% delta) and Intel Core i7-13800H (34,988, -0.3% delta), meaning it delivers mainstream mobile performance. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, by contrast, rivals Intel Xeon 654 (90,717, -0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91,199, -0.7%), placing it in workstation-class territory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 records an average benchmark score of 90,541, which is 55,660 points higher than the Ryzen 5 150's 34,881. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 5 150 sits in the 84th percentile.

Q: How does the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 compare in multithreaded workloads?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 in the passmark multithread test, which is 61.3% higher than the Ryzen 5 150's 17,492. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Ryzen 5 150 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 150 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins all 11 benchmark comparisons. The Ryzen 5 150's closest margin is in single-thread performance, where it trails by 19.7% (3,155 versus 3,927).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Ryzen 5 150 uses dual-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 150 does not.

Q: Which processor has a newer architecture?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process node with the Strix Halo codename. The Ryzen 5 150 uses the Zen 3+ architecture on a 6 nm process node with the Rembrandt-R codename. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 was released on 2026-01-05, while the Ryzen 5 150 was released on 2025-09-30.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 includes the Radeon 8060S integrated graphics, while the Ryzen 5 150 includes the Radeon 660M. The database does not include separate graphics benchmarks, but the processor-level data consistently favors the Ryzen AI Max+ 392.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design generations from AMD. The Ryzen 5 150 uses the Zen 3+ architecture with the Rembrandt-R codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, built on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node shrink from 6 nm to 4 nm contributes to the AI Max+ 392's higher transistor density and efficiency.

The core counts differ substantially. The Ryzen 5 150 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, exactly doubling the parallel execution capacity. Cache hierarchies reflect this gap. The Ryzen 5 150 has 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 16 MB shared L3. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3, giving it four times the L3 capacity.

The physical package designs differ as well. The Ryzen 5 150 uses AMD Socket FP7 with a die size of 210 mm², while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11 with a die size listed as 2x 70.6 mm², indicating a chiplet-based design. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's dual-die configuration allows it to scale cache and cores beyond what a monolithic die achieves.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The Ryzen 5 150 supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, a 3.3x increase in memory throughput. The AI Max+ 392 also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 5 150 does not, making it suitable for error-sensitive computing environments.

PCIe connectivity differs modestly. The Ryzen 5 150 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both use the same PCIe generation, but the Ryzen 5 150 offers more lanes for expansion devices.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 150 | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.55 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Architecture | Zen 3+ | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Rembrandt-R | Strix Halo |

| Process node | 6 nm | 4 nm |

| Die size | 210 mm² | 2x 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 | 16 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 660M | Radeon 8060S |

| Release date | 2025-09-30 | 2026-01-05 |

| Part number | 100-000000990 (FP7r2) | 100-000001979 |

The base clock favors the Ryzen 5 150 at 3.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, but the boost clock favors the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 5.00 GHz versus 4.55 GHz. The higher boost clock, combined with the Zen 5 architecture, explains the 19.7% single-thread advantage. The TDP difference of 35 W versus 55 W indicates the AI Max+ 392 requires more power headroom, consistent with its larger core count and higher performance envelope.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark suite covers eleven tests, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every one. The largest margin appears in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the AI Max+ 392 scores 320 against 47 for the Ryzen 5 150, a 85.3% advantage. This test stresses integer arithmetic and cache efficiency, both areas where the Zen 5 architecture with 64 MB L3 excels.

The physics test shows the second-largest gap at 72.1%, with scores of 2,887 versus 806. Physics workloads typically benefit from high core counts and memory bandwidth, and the AI Max+ 392's 12 cores, quad-channel memory, and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth deliver accordingly. The extended instructions test shows a 67.9% difference (45,666 versus 14,675), reflecting the newer instruction set support in Zen 5.

Floating point math favors the AI Max+ 392 by 64.7%, scoring 99,548 against 35,118. The random string sorting test shows a 62.4% gap (59,487 versus 22,382), a workload that depends on memory latency and cache behavior. Data compression shows a 61.9% difference (554,760 versus 211,289), with the AI Max+ 392 nearly tripling the compression throughput.

The multithread test shows a 61.3% gap (45,231 versus 17,492), closely matching the core count doubling. Integer math shows a 59.2% difference (152,414 versus 62,151), while data encryption shows a 51.7% gap (27,784 versus 13,425). The smallest margin is single-thread performance at 19.7% (3,927 versus 3,155), which still favors the AI Max+ 392 and confirms that its architectural advantages extend beyond raw core count.

The nearest-rival data contextualizes these results. The Ryzen 5 150's average score of 34,881 places it within 0.3% of Intel Core i7-13800H (34,988) and Intel Core i9-12900HX (35,003), meaning it performs on par with those mainstream mobile parts. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's average of 90,541 places it within 0.7% of AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91,199) and within 0.2% of Intel Xeon 654 (90,717), firmly in high-end mobile workstation territory. The percentile rankings reinforce this: 84th for the Ryzen 5 150 versus 96th for the AI Max+ 392, a twelve-point gap that reflects the significant performance separation between the two parts.