AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F wins by a wide margin. It scores 2943 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 1960, giving the 8400F a 50.2% advantage.

Q: Why does the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 win most of the Passmark tests despite losing some Cinebench tests?

A: The data shows the AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads on the 8400F, plus 32 MB of shared L3 cache versus 16 MB. That extra parallelism and cache helps it dominate Passmark's multi-threaded workloads like integer math, floating point math, and data compression.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each chip?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 records an average benchmark score of 49796, while the Ryzen 5 8400F records 25005. The AI Max+ 388 sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and the 8400F sits at the 77th percentile.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F does not.

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

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 8400F uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. That is roughly a threefold difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 boosts to 5.00 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz on the Ryzen 5 8400F. However, the 8400F has a higher base clock at 4.20 GHz versus 3.60 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD generations and target different market segments. The Ryzen 5 8400F is a desktop part from the 8000 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix codename. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is a mobile part built on Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename.

Both use the same 4 nm process node from TSMC, but the die sizes differ substantially. The 8400F has a single die measuring 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors. The AI Max+ 388 uses two dies, each measuring 70.6 mm², for a combined die area of roughly 141 mm². The transistor count for the AI Max+ 388 is not recorded in the database.

The cache hierarchy differs in both capacity and organization. The 8400F has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The AI Max+ 388 increases L1 to 80 KB per core, keeps L2 at 1 MB per core, and doubles the shared L3 to 32 MB.

Memory architecture is a major split. The 8400F supports dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth and includes ECC memory support. The AI Max+ 388 also has integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, while the 8400F has no integrated graphics, marked as N/A.

The socket and platform differ completely. The 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5 with 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only). The AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11 with 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only). The 8400F has an unlocked multiplier, while the AI Max+ 388 is locked.

The AI Max+ 388 is a newer release, dated 2026-01-05, versus 2024-03-31 for the 8400F. The 8400F has a launch MSRP of $170; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AI Max+ 388.

The Verdict

The benchmark data tells a clear story: the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the Ryzen 5 8400F wins only 2.

The AI Max+ 388 is the stronger overall processor, with an average benchmark score of 49796 versus 25005 for the 8400F. Its percentile ranking of 90 versus 77 confirms that it sits in a higher performance tier. It leads decisively in every Passmark multi-threaded workload recorded, including a 28.1% lead in data compression, a 32.5% lead in integer math, and a 36.4% lead in floating point math.

The Ryzen 5 8400F, however, retains two notable advantages. It wins Cinebench R23 multi-core by 11.2% (20851 versus 18759) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 50.2% (2943 versus 1960). That single-core result is the largest delta in either direction across all recorded tests. The 8400F also carries a lower launch MSRP of $170, though no comparable price data exists for the AI Max+ 388.

For workloads that favor Cinebench R23, particularly single-threaded responsiveness, the 8400F is the better choice. For everything else in the recorded benchmark suite, which includes data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, physics, random string sorting, and general multi-threading, the AI Max+ 388 delivers substantially higher scores. The data indicates that buyers prioritizing raw multi-core compute and memory bandwidth should select the AI Max+ 388, while those focused on single-core Cinebench performance will find the 8400F superior.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every recorded specification field.

• Cores: 6 on the 8400F, 8 on the AI Max+ 388
• Threads: 12 on the 8400F, 16 on the AI Max+ 388
• Base clock: 4.20 GHz on the 8400F, 3.60 GHz on the AI Max+ 388
• Boost clock: 4.70 GHz on the 8400F, 5.00 GHz on the AI Max+ 388
• TDP: 65 on the 8400F, 55 on the AI Max+ 388
• Socket: AM5 on the 8400F, FP11 on the AI Max+ 388
• Architecture: Zen 4 on the 8400F, Zen 5 on the AI Max+ 388
• Codename: Phoenix on the 8400F, Strix Halo on the AI Max+ 388
• Die size: 178 mm² on the 8400F, 2x 70.6 mm² on the AI Max+ 388
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core on the 8400F, 80 KB per core on the AI Max+ 388
• L3 cache: 16 MB shared on the 8400F, 32 MB shared on the AI Max+ 388
• Memory support: DDR5 on the 8400F, LPDDR5X on the AI Max+ 388
• Memory bus: Dual-channel on the 8400F, Quad-channel on the AI Max+ 388
• Memory bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s on the 8400F, 256.0 GB/s on the AI Max+ 388
• ECC memory: Not supported on the 8400F, supported on the AI Max+ 388
• PCIe lanes: 20 on the 8400F, 16 on the AI Max+ 388
• Integrated graphics: N/A on the 8400F, Radeon 8060S on the AI Max+ 388
• Market segment: Desktop on the 8400F, Mobile on the AI Max+ 388
• Release date: 2024-03-31 on the 8400F, 2026-01-05 on the AI Max+ 388
• Multiplier unlocked: Yes on the 8400F, No on the AI Max+ 388

The transistor count is recorded only for the 8400F at 25,000 million; no value is listed for the AI Max+ 388. Launch MSRP is recorded only for the 8400F at $170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 dominates the majority of the recorded head-to-head tests, with its largest wins coming in compute-heavy Passmark workloads.

In floating point math, the AI Max+ 388 scores 72722 versus 46217 for the 8400F, a 36.4% advantage. Integer math shows a similar pattern: 109588 versus 74021, a 32.5% lead. Extended instructions favor the AI Max+ 388 at 32719 versus 22175, a 32.2% gap. Prime number finding delivers 145 versus 89, a 38.6% lead, the largest single-test margin for the AI Max+ 388.

Data compression shows the AI Max+ 388 at 400887 versus 288158, a 28.1% lead. Data encryption records 20092 versus 16646, a 17.2% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the AI Max+ 388 at 43196 versus 34604, a 19.9% lead. The Passmark multi-thread test shows 33486 versus 24389, a 27.2% edge for the AI Max+ 388. Physics results are 1843 versus 1332, a 27.7% lead. Single-thread Passmark scores are 4185 versus 3685, an 11.9% advantage for the AI Max+ 388.

Cinebench R15 results also favor the AI Max+ 388. In multi-core, it scores 2872 versus 2101, a 26.8% lead. In single-core, the margin narrows to 298 versus 296, only a 0.7% difference, still in favor of the AI Max+ 388.

The Ryzen 5 8400F takes the two remaining tests, both in Cinebench R23. In single-core, the 8400F scores 2943 versus 1960, a massive 50.2% lead, the largest delta in either direction across all recorded tests. In multi-core, the 8400F scores 20851 versus 18759, an 11.2% advantage. That multi-core win is notable because the AI Max+ 388 has more cores and threads, yet the 8400F still outpaces it in this specific workload.

The overall win count is 13 for the AI Max+ 388 and 2 for the 8400F. The database also shows the 8400F's nearest rivals by average score include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F (0.2% higher), Intel Core i7-11850H (0.3% higher), and Intel Core i7-13620H (0.4% higher), with the AMD EPYC 9474F 0.4% lower. The AI Max+ 388's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE (0.1% lower), Intel Core i5-14600KF (0.8% higher), AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (1.2% higher), and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (1.2% higher). These deltas confirm that both processors sit near the top of their respective performance tiers, but the AI Max+ 388 occupies a higher tier overall.