AMD Ryzen 7 250 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 across the full suite of PassMark tests. The Ryzen 7 250 does not record a single head-to-head win. The most dramatic separation appears in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the AI Max+ 392 scores 320 versus 73 for the Ryzen 7 250, a delta of -77.2% from the perspective of the smaller chip. This indicates a massive advantage in integer-based prime calculation workloads, a category that often responds strongly to core count and memory bandwidth.

The passmark_physics test shows the second-largest gap. The AI Max+ 392 scores 2887 against 1147 for the Ryzen 7 250, a delta of -60.3%. Physics simulations in this benchmark suite are typically heavily threaded, and the AI Max+ 392's additional cores and higher thread count are the obvious drivers. The gap in extended instruction throughput is also severe: 45666 versus 21613, a delta of -52.7%. This covers AVX-style workloads and other vectorized instruction sets, where the newer Zen 5 architecture provides a substantial uplift over Zen 4.

Floating-point math performance favors the AI Max+ 392 by a wide margin as well. The score of 99548 versus 53285 represents a delta of -46.5%. Data compression follows at -45.8%, with scores of 554760 and 300708. The AI Max+ 392 also leads multithread throughput by -44.5%, scoring 45231 against 25089. Integer math shows a delta of -39.9%, with 152414 versus 91565. Random string sorting, a test sensitive to memory latency and cache behavior, shows a delta of -39.7% with scores of 59487 and 35861.

Data encryption shows a more moderate but still clear gap. The AI Max+ 392 scores 27784 versus 17661, a delta of -36.4%. The narrowest margin in the entire matchup is single-thread performance. The AI Max+ 392 scores 3927 versus 3678, a delta of only -6.3%. This is the only test where the Ryzen 7 250 comes close, and it reflects the fact that both chips have high boost clocks, 5.10 GHz for the Ryzen 7 250 and 5.00 GHz for the AI Max+ 392. The newer Zen 5 core still wins, but the advantage is modest in lightly threaded tasks.

The overall average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The Ryzen 7 250 has an average score of 38221 and sits at the 86th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The AI Max+ 392 has an average score of 90541 and sits at the 96th percentile. The closest rivals to the Ryzen 7 250 include the Intel Core Ultra 5 245T, which scores 38194 with a delta of 0.1%, and the Intel Core i5-13600HX, which scores 38261 with a delta of -0.1%. The AI Max+ 392, by contrast, trades blows with workstation-class parts. The Intel Xeon 654 scores 90717 with a delta of -0.2%, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX scores 91199 with a delta of -0.7%. The AI Max+ 392 also beats the Intel Xeon w7-2575X by 2.7% and the Intel Xeon 6736P by 3%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built for different roles within AMD's mobile lineup. The Ryzen 7 250 uses Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename. The AI Max+ 392 uses Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename. Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC, so the process node itself is not a differentiator. The transistor counts and die sizes tell different stories. The Ryzen 7 250 packs 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The AI Max+ 392 does not have a listed transistor count but uses a dual-die design with two 70.6 mm² chiplets.

Core counts differ substantially. The Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. That is a 50% increase in both cores and threads. Cache configurations also favor the larger chip. The Ryzen 7 250 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The AI Max+ 392 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. The L3 cache difference is significant: 64 MB versus 16 MB, a fourfold increase. This explains part of the AI Max+ 392's advantage in cache-sensitive workloads like random string sorting and data compression.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Ryzen 7 250 supports DDR5 with a dual-channel memory bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The bandwidth difference is nearly 3x and directly impacts every memory-bound benchmark in the suite. The AI Max+ 392 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 7 250 does not. PCIe connectivity is similar in generation but different in lane count. Both use Gen 4, but the Ryzen 7 250 offers 20 CPU lanes while the AI Max+ 392 offers 16.

Socket compatibility also differs. The Ryzen 7 250 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11. The integrated graphics are different as well. The Ryzen 7 250 carries a Radeon 780M, while the AI Max+ 392 carries a Radeon 8060S. The AI Max+ 392 has a higher TDP of 55 watts against 28 watts for the Ryzen 7 250. Clock speeds are close, with the Ryzen 7 250 running a 3.30 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost, while the AI Max+ 392 runs a 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Release dates show the AI Max+ 392 is a newer part. The Ryzen 7 250 was released on 2025-01-05, while the AI Max+ 392 was released on 2026-01-05. Both are listed as Active in production status and both target the mobile market segment.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database. The smallest margin is 6.3% in single-thread performance, which is the only category where the Ryzen 7 250 remains competitive. Every other test shows a gap of at least 36.4%, with several exceeding 50% or even 70%. The AI Max+ 392 delivers roughly 2.4x the average benchmark score of the Ryzen 7 250, with 90541 versus 38221.

The Ryzen 7 250 is not a weak processor in absolute terms. Its 86th percentile ranking puts it above the majority of CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 9 285H and Intel Core i5-13600HX, with deltas under 0.2%. For users constrained by the 28 watt TDP and dual-channel memory, the Ryzen 7 250 still offers strong Zen 4 performance in a power-efficient package. The AI Max+ 392, however, operates in a different class. Its 96th percentile ranking places it alongside Intel Xeon workstation parts and the Ryzen 9 9955HX, with deltas of less than 1% separating them.

The architectural gap is the deciding factor. Zen 5 delivers better single-thread performance despite a slightly lower boost clock. The additional 4 cores and 8 threads provide a massive multithreading advantage. The 64 MB L3 cache and 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth eliminate bottlenecks that limit the Ryzen 7 250. The 55 watt TDP is higher, but that is the trade-off for workstation-class throughput in a mobile form factor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 in single-thread performance?

A: The AI Max+ 392 scores 3927 in the passmark_single_thread test versus 3678 for the Ryzen 7 250, a delta of 6.3%. This is the closest result in the entire head-to-head comparison.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The AI Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 7 250 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 supports 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus. The AI Max+ 392 supports 256.0 GB/s over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Does either chip support ECC memory?

A: The AI Max+ 392 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 7 250 does not.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 7 250 has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz, compared to 5.00 GHz for the AI Max+ 392. Despite this, the AI Max+ 392 still wins the single-thread benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The AI Max+ 392 wins every measured benchmark, but the size of the win varies by workload type. The biggest advantages appear in heavily multithreaded and memory-intensive tasks. Prime number finding shows a 77.2% gap, physics simulation shows 60.3%, and extended instruction throughput shows 52.7%. These workloads benefit directly from the AI Max+ 392's 12 cores, 24 threads, and 64 MB L3 cache. Data compression, floating-point math, and multithread tests all show gaps between 44.5% and 46.5%. Integer math and random string sorting sit near 39.7% to 39.9%. Data encryption shows a 36.4% gap. These results consistently favor the larger chip.

The Ryzen 7 250's only point of relative strength is single-thread performance, where the gap narrows to 6.3%. Even there, the AI Max+ 392 wins. For users prioritizing lower power consumption, the Ryzen 7 250 uses 28 watts versus 55 watts for the AI Max+ 392. The Ryzen 7 250 also offers more CPU-only PCIe lanes, 20 versus 16, though both are Gen 4. The Ryzen 7 250 uses the FP8 socket while the AI Max+ 392 uses FP11, so platform compatibility is a practical differentiator. The Ryzen 7 250's Radeon 780M integrated graphics and the AI Max+ 392's Radeon 8060S are not directly benchmarked in this dataset, so no performance conclusion can be drawn from these measurements.

For workloads that can use 24 threads and quad-channel memory bandwidth, the AI Max+ 392 is the clear choice. For users who need a 28 watt mobile processor with strong single-core clocks and a smaller platform footprint, the Ryzen 7 250 remains a valid option, but the recorded data shows no performance category where it takes the lead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 7 250 | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Strix Halo |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 2x 70.6 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (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 | 89.6 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 780M | Radeon 8060S |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-01-05 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Mobile |