AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 250 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 are both 8-core mobile processors from the same manufacturer, yet the benchmark data places them in different performance tiers. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins every single recorded head-to-head benchmark, with a 15 to 0 win count. This analysis examines the architectural and specification differences that drive that outcome, then breaks down where each processor is best suited based on the recorded measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, while the AMD Ryzen 7 250 has an average score of 38221. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also sits at the 90th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 86th percentile for the Ryzen 7 250.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18759 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 21.8% ahead of the Ryzen 7 250's score of 14676. The single-core gap is smaller, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leading by 12.5% with a score of 1960 versus 1715.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both are 8-core, 16-thread processors. However, they use different architectures: the Ryzen 7 250 uses Zen 4 (Hawk Point), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Zen 5 (Strix Halo).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with a bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The Ryzen 7 250 supports dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has nearly three times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz, compared to the Ryzen AI Max+ 388's 5.00 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 still wins all single-threaded benchmarks.

Q: Do the processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 7 250 does not have ECC support.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different architecture generations. The Ryzen 7 250 is built on Zen 4 with the Hawk Point codename, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Zen 5 under the Strix Halo codename. Both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The Ryzen 7 250 has a die size of 178 mm² and contains 25,000 million transistors. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses a dual-die configuration with two 70.6 mm² dies, for a combined die area of roughly 141 mm². The transistor count for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is not recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially. The Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but doubles the L3 to 32 MB shared. This larger L3 cache likely contributes to the Ryzen AI Max+ 388's advantage in memory-sensitive workloads.

The memory controllers are also different. The Ryzen 7 250 uses a dual-channel DDR5 interface with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface with 256.0 GB/s, a significant upgrade that benefits both CPU and integrated graphics workloads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen 7 250 does not.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen 7 250 carries the Radeon 780M, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Radeon 8060S. The PCIe configuration is also different: the Ryzen 7 250 has Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded head-to-head benchmark results, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins every test. There is no workload category in the database where the Ryzen 7 250 comes out ahead. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads in CPU-heavy workloads like Cinebench R15 and R23, as well as in all PassMark tests including integer math, floating point math, data compression, and physics.

The Ryzen 7 250 does have a higher boost clock, which suggests it may hold an advantage in brief single-threaded bursts, but the recorded data shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins single-core benchmarks by 9.7% to 12.5%. The Ryzen 7 250 also has a lower TDP of 28 watts versus 55 watts for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, which makes it the more power-efficient option in absolute terms.

For users constrained by power budgets or thermal limits, the Ryzen 7 250 offers a meaningful efficiency advantage. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388, with its higher TDP and larger memory subsystem, is positioned for maximum performance rather than efficiency. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also supports ECC memory, which can matter for data integrity in certain professional workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across almost every specification field. The Ryzen 7 250 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a higher base clock but a lower boost clock.

The TDP is 28 watts for the Ryzen 7 250 and 55 watts for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The sockets differ: the Ryzen 7 250 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11. The architectures are Zen 4 and Zen 5, respectively.

The cache hierarchy shows the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 with 80 KB of L1 per core versus 64 KB for the Ryzen 7 250. Both have 1 MB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is 16 MB for the Ryzen 7 250 and 32 MB for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

Memory support differs: DDR5 dual-channel for the Ryzen 7 250 versus LPDDR5X quad-channel for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. ECC support is absent on the Ryzen 7 250 and present on the Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

The PCIe lanes are 20 for the Ryzen 7 250 and 16 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388, both Gen 4. The integrated graphics are Radeon 780M versus Radeon 8060S. The release dates are January 2025 for the Ryzen 7 250 and January 2026 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins all 15 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The largest margin comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 145 versus 73 for the Ryzen 7 250, a 49.7% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to architecture improvements, and the Zen 5 design shows a clear edge here.

The second-largest margin is in PassMark extended instructions, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scoring 32719 against 21613, a 33.9% lead. This indicates that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 handles SIMD and specialized instruction workloads much more efficiently. PassMark physics shows a 37.8% gap (1843 versus 1147), which again favors the newer architecture.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18759 versus 14676, a 21.8% lead. The single-core R23 score is 1960 versus 1715, a 12.5% gap. The R15 versions show similar patterns: 2872 versus 2302 (19.8% multi-core) and 298 versus 269 (9.7% single-core).

PassMark data compression shows a 25% gap (400887 versus 300708). Floating point math has a 26.7% gap (72722 versus 53285). Integer math shows a 16.4% gap (109588 versus 91565). Multithreaded performance has a 25.1% gap (33486 versus 25089). Random string sorting shows a 17% gap (43196 versus 35861). Data encryption has a 12.1% gap (20092 versus 17661), and single-threaded performance has a 12.1% gap (4185 versus 3678).

The Ryzen AI Max+ 388's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 9 273PE with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core i5-14600KF with a delta of 0.8%, the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 with a delta of 1.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G with a delta of 1.2%. The Ryzen 7 250's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T with a delta of 0.1%, the Intel Core i5-13600HX with a delta of -0.1%, the Intel Core i5-14490F with a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H with a delta of -0.2%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 7 250 in every recorded test. The performance advantage ranges from 9.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 49.7% in PassMark find prime numbers. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also has a higher average benchmark score (49796 versus 38221) and a higher percentile ranking (90th versus 86th).

Users who require maximum CPU throughput should choose the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. Its quad-channel memory, larger L3 cache, and Zen 5 architecture deliver consistent wins across multi-core, single-core, and specialized instruction workloads. The ECC memory support adds reliability for data-sensitive applications.

The Ryzen 7 250 remains a viable option for scenarios where the 28-watt TDP is a hard constraint. Its lower power draw and higher boost clock make it suitable for thermally limited designs, though the recorded data shows it trails in all performance categories. The Ryzen 7 250's 20 PCIe lanes also provide more connectivity for peripheral expansion compared to the 16 lanes on the Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

For the majority of workloads, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the stronger processor. The only areas where the Ryzen 7 250 shows advantages are power consumption and PCIe lane count, neither of which appears in the benchmark results. The data supports selecting the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 for performance-focused mobile systems, while the Ryzen 7 250 fits efficiency-oriented designs.