AMD Ryzen 5 40 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every single recorded head-to-head comparison, taking 11 of 11 tests. The Ryzen 5 40 records zero wins. The scale of the victory varies by workload, but the direction is uniform.

The largest margin appears in the prime number test. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 320, while the Ryzen 5 40 scores just 20. This is a delta of -93.7% from the perspective of the Ryzen 5 40, meaning the AI Max+ 392 is roughly 15 times faster in this specific integer workload. Such a gap reflects not just core count but also architectural efficiency in handling tight loops and branch-heavy code.

Extended instructions show a similar blowout. The AI Max+ 392 posts 45,666, versus 6,437 for the Ryzen 5 40, a delta of -85.9%. This test typically exercises SIMD and newer ISA extensions, where the Zen 5 architecture holds a clear advantage over Zen 2. Floating-point math follows with 99,548 against 15,194, a -84.7% delta. Physics simulation scores 2,887 versus 432, a -85% delta, indicating the AI Max+ 392 handles rigid-body and constraint-heavy calculations far more effectively.

Multi-threaded throughput is another area of massive separation. The PassMark multithread score for the AI Max+ 392 is 45,231, while the Ryzen 5 40 manages 9,341, a -79.3% delta. Integer math mirrors this exactly: 152,414 versus 31,598, also a -79.3% delta. Data compression shows 554,760 versus 141,533, a -74.5% delta, while random string sorting delivers 59,487 versus 15,124, a -74.6% delta. These are all substantial, consistent gaps that indicate the AI Max+ 392 is not merely ahead, but ahead by a wide margin across parallel workloads.

Even in single-threaded performance, where core count matters less, the AI Max+ 392 leads. Its single-thread score is 3,927, against 2,477 for the Ryzen 5 40, a -36.9% delta. This is the smallest relative gap in the dataset, but it is still significant. It shows that the Zen 5 core itself, not just the additional cores, delivers higher per-thread performance. The data encryption test rounds out the list: 27,784 versus 6,646, a -76.1% delta.

The average benchmark score for the AI Max+ 392 is 90,541, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Ryzen 5 40 averages 15,882, sitting at the 70th percentile. The nearest rivals for the AI Max+ 392 include the Intel Xeon 654 with a -0.2% delta, the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX at -0.7%, and the Intel Xeon w7-2575X at +2.7%. For the Ryzen 5 40, the closest comparisons are the AMD EPYC 75F3 at +0.1%, the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U at -0.2%, the AMD EPYC 9354P at +0.4%, and the AMD EPYC 9334 at -0.4%. These rival positions confirm that both processors sit in their respective performance tiers, but the tiers themselves are far apart.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design generations. The Ryzen 5 40 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Mendocino, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses Zen 5, codenamed Strix Halo, on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node shrink from 6 nm to 4 nm is a fundamental difference that enables higher density and better power efficiency.

Core counts differ sharply. The Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This tripling of core count and threading directly explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark gap. Clock speeds also favor the larger chip: the Ryzen 5 40 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, while the AI Max+ 392 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Higher clocks on more cores is a powerful combination.

Cache hierarchies show a generational leap. The Ryzen 5 40 allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The AI Max+ 392 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache difference is particularly stark: 16 times more shared cache on the AI Max+ 392. This explains its advantage in data compression and random string sorting, where large working sets benefit from on-die storage.

Memory support also diverges. The Ryzen 5 40 uses LPDDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AI Max+ 392 uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. That is nearly three times the memory bandwidth, which feeds both the CPU cores and the integrated graphics. The AI Max+ 392 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 40 does not.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Ryzen 5 40 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only). The AI Max+ 392 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This affects expansion options and external device throughput. The integrated graphics are also different tiers: the Ryzen 5 40 has a Radeon 610M, while the AI Max+ 392 has a Radeon 8060S. The latter is positioned as a significantly more capable GPU, consistent with the larger memory bus and bandwidth.

Socket and package details complete the picture. The Ryzen 5 40 uses AMD Socket FT6, while the AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11. Die size also differs: the Ryzen 5 40 has a single die of 100 mm², while the AI Max+ 392 uses a dual-die configuration with 2x 70.6 mm². The AI Max+ 392's part number is recorded as 100-000001979, while the Ryzen 5 40's part number is listed as unknown.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3,927 in the PassMark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 scores 2,477. The AI Max+ 392 leads by a delta of -36.9% relative to the Ryzen 5 40.

Q: How large is the gap in multi-threaded performance?

A: The AI Max+ 392 scores 45,231 in PassMark multithread, versus 9,341 for the Ryzen 5 40. This is a -79.3% delta, meaning the AI Max+ 392 delivers roughly 4.8 times the multi-threaded throughput.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. That is a 16-fold difference in favor of the AI Max+ 392.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory, but the Ryzen 5 40 does not.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AI Max+ 392 has 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus. The Ryzen 5 40 has 88.0 GB/s over a dual-channel LPDDR5 bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AI Max+ 392 has an average benchmark score of 90,541 and sits at the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen 5 40 has an average score of 15,882 and sits at the 70th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification field. Core count: 4 versus 12. Threads: 8 versus 24. Base clock: 2.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 watts versus 55 watts. Socket: FT6 versus FP11. Architecture: Zen 2 versus Zen 5. Codename: Mendocino versus Strix Halo. Process node: 6 nm versus 4 nm. Die size: 100 mm² versus 2x 70.6 mm².

Cache allocation differs per core and in total. L1 per core: 64 KB versus 80 KB. L2 per core: 512 KB versus 1 MB. Shared L3: 4 MB versus 64 MB. Memory support: LPDDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bus: dual-channel versus quad-channel. Memory bandwidth: 88.0 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. ECC: false versus true. PCIe: Gen 3 with 4 lanes versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 610M versus Radeon 8060S.

Release dates also differ. The Ryzen 5 40 was released on September 30, 2025. The AI Max+ 392 was released on January 5, 2026. Both are listed as active production and neither has a launch MSRP in the database. Both are mobile market segment parts with locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 40 wins no benchmark tests in the head-to-head dataset. Its strengths are relative to its own power envelope and market position. With a TDP of 15 watts, it is designed for low-power mobile devices where thermal and battery constraints are primary. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for light productivity, basic web browsing, and office tasks. The 88.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and PCIe Gen 3 support align with a modest, efficient platform. Its 70th percentile ranking among all CPUs shows it is not a weak performer for its class, but it is outclassed by the AI Max+ 392 in every measured dimension.

The AI Max+ 392 wins every recorded test. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads: data compression, integer math, extended instructions, and physics simulation all show deltas of -74.5% or worse. The 12 cores, 24 threads, 64 MB L3 cache, and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suited for content creation, compilation, scientific computing, and heavy data processing. The 96th percentile ranking places it among the top CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are server-class Xeon parts and the Ryzen 9 9955HX, which confirms its high-end positioning. The single-thread lead of -36.9% also indicates strong responsiveness in everyday applications.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 40 in every benchmark recorded in the database. It wins 11 of 11 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from -36.9% in single-threaded work to -93.7% in prime number finding. Its average benchmark score of 90,541 is more than five times that of the Ryzen 5 40's 15,882.

The Ryzen 5 40 is a low-power, entry-level mobile processor. Its 15-watt TDP, 4 cores, and 4 MB L3 cache define a part for basic computing. It sits at the 70th percentile, surrounded by EPYC and Core Ultra parts of similar average score. It cannot match the AI Max+ 392 in any metric that the database measures.

The AI Max+ 392 is a high-end mobile processor with 12 cores, 24 threads, 64 MB L3, and 256 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It ranks at the 96th percentile, adjacent to Xeon and Ryzen 9 HX parts. Its benchmark dominance is consistent across integer, floating-point, encryption, compression, and physics workloads.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision rests entirely on workload and power budget. If the requirement is maximum performance across the board, the AI Max+ 392 is the clear choice based on this data. If the requirement is minimal power draw in a thin-and-light chassis, the Ryzen 5 40 offers an efficient, lower-performance alternative. The benchmark results do not show a single scenario where the Ryzen 5 40 outpaces the AI Max+ 392.