AMD Ryzen 7 260 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388, which wins 14 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons. The single exception is a narrow win for the AMD Ryzen 7 260 in the PassMark data encryption test, where it scores 20267 against 20092, a 0.9% edge. That is the only benchmark in which the Ryzen 7 260 leads.

The largest performance gap appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 145, while the Ryzen 7 260 scores 77, a 46.9% advantage. This is the most lopsided result in the entire comparison and points to a substantial difference in raw integer throughput under that workload.

PassMark physics also shows a major separation. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 records 1843 versus 1218, a 33.9% lead. Extended instructions follow at 18.9% ahead (32719 versus 26544), floating point math at 18.2% ahead (72722 versus 59462), and multithread at 16.2% ahead (33486 versus 28078). These results indicate that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 delivers broad superiority in compute-heavy tasks, not just a single niche.

The Cinebench suite tells the same story with smaller margins. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 18759 against 17211.5, an 8.2% lead. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, it scores 1960 against 1770.5, a 9.7% lead. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a 4.3% lead (2872 versus 2747.5), and Cinebench R15 singlecore shows a 7.2% lead (298 versus 276.5). These are consistent, moderate advantages across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark integer math shows an 11.7% lead for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 (109588 versus 96737). PassMark single-thread shows a 10.7% lead (4185 versus 3736). Data compression shows a 12.3% lead (400887 versus 351517). Random string sorting is the closest contest after the encryption result, with the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 ahead by only 1.9% (43196 versus 42383). The data indicates that the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the faster processor in nearly every measured category, with the Ryzen 7 260 managing only a marginal encryption win.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same 8-core, 16-thread configuration, but they are built on different architectures and target different platforms. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 uses Zen 4 with the Hawk Point codename, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Zen 5 with the Strix Halo codename. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process, according to the database. The Ryzen 7 260 has a die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors, whereas the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is recorded as two dies of 70.6 mm² each, with no transistor count listed.

Cache organization differs noticeably. The Ryzen 7 260 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The larger L1 and double the L3 capacity likely contribute to its single-thread and multithread advantages in the recorded benchmarks.

Clock speeds also differ. The Ryzen 7 260 has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Despite lower clock speeds, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins nearly every benchmark, which suggests that the Zen 5 architecture and larger cache deliver more work per clock cycle.

Memory support is another major split. The Ryzen 7 260 supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 7 260 does not. The much higher memory bandwidth of the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is a clear factor in its wins in data compression, integer math, and other memory-sensitive tests.

The platforms are not interchangeable. The Ryzen 7 260 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11. PCIe support differs as well: the Ryzen 7 260 has Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ too, with the Ryzen 7 260 featuring a Radeon 780M and the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 featuring a Radeon 8060S.

Power targets also separate the two. The Ryzen 7 260 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a TDP of 55 watts. The higher power envelope of the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 aligns with its higher benchmark scores, though the architecture and memory improvements are also significant contributors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 14 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins only the PassMark data encryption test, by 0.9%.

Q: How large is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads by 46.9% with a score of 145 versus 77.

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

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads, according to the recorded specifications.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 32 MB of shared L3, double the 16 MB shared L3 of the Ryzen 7 260.

Q: Do the processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 260 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors in the database:

• Base clock: 3.80 GHz (Ryzen 7 260) versus 3.60 GHz (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Boost clock: 5.10 GHz (Ryzen 7 260) versus 5.00 GHz (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• TDP: 45 watts (Ryzen 7 260) versus 55 watts (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Socket: AMD Socket FP8 (Ryzen 7 260) versus AMD Socket FP11 (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Architecture: Zen 4 (Ryzen 7 260) versus Zen 5 (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Codename: Hawk Point (Ryzen 7 260) versus Strix Halo (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Generation: Ryzen 7 (Zen 4 Hawk Point) versus Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 Strix Halo)
• Die size: 178 mm² (Ryzen 7 260) versus 2x 70.6 mm² (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Transistors: 25,000 million (Ryzen 7 260) versus not listed (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (Ryzen 7 260) versus 80 KB per core (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• L3 cache: 16 MB shared (Ryzen 7 260) versus 32 MB shared (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Memory support: DDR5 (Ryzen 7 260) versus LPDDR5X (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Memory bus: Dual-channel (Ryzen 7 260) versus Quad-channel (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (Ryzen 7 260) versus 256.0 GB/s (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• ECC memory: false (Ryzen 7 260) versus true (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 lanes CPU only (Ryzen 7 260) versus Gen 4, 16 lanes CPU only (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 780M (Ryzen 7 260) versus Radeon 8060S (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Release date: 2025-01-05 (Ryzen 7 260) versus 2026-01-05 (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)
• Part number: 100-000001724 (Ryzen 7 260) versus 100-000001980 (Ryzen AI Max+ 388)

The two processors share the same core and thread counts, the same 4 nm TSMC process, the same 1 MB L2 per core, and both are unlocked multipliers set to false.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is the faster processor in 14 of 15 tests, with a 90th percentile ranking among all CPUs versus 88th for the Ryzen 7 260. Its average benchmark score is 49796, compared to 43717 for the Ryzen 7 260, a difference that corresponds to the nearest rival positioning in the database. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 sits near the Intel Core 9 273PE, which scores 49845 with a delta of -0.1%, and ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600KF and AMD Ryzen 9 7900. The Ryzen 7 260 sits near the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745, which scores 43704 with a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 7 170.

The Ryzen 7 260 does have a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts, which matters for systems where power draw is a constraint. It also has a slight clock speed advantage, with a 3.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost versus 3.60 GHz and 5.00 GHz. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins outside of the encryption test. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 compensates with the newer Zen 5 architecture, double the L3 cache, larger L1 cache, and a quad-channel memory interface with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

For pure performance, the data points to the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. For lower power consumption, the Ryzen 7 260 is the better fit, though the performance cost is substantial in most workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins across almost the entire benchmark suite. It leads in Cinebench R15 multicore, Cinebench R15 singlecore, Cinebench R23 multicore, Cinebench R23 singlecore, PassMark data compression, PassMark extended instructions, PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark floating point math, PassMark integer math, PassMark multithread, PassMark physics, PassMark random string sorting, and PassMark single-thread. The largest wins are in find prime numbers (46.9%), physics (33.9%), extended instructions (18.9%), and floating point math (18.2%). These results make it the clear choice for rendering, scientific computing, and other compute-intensive tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 7 260 wins only the PassMark data encryption test, with a 0.9% margin. This is a narrow victory and may reflect a specific optimization rather than general superiority. The Ryzen 7 260 also consumes less power, with a TDP of 45 watts versus 55 watts, and it has a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz. For systems where the lower power envelope is the priority, the Ryzen 7 260 is the only sensible option between the two, but the benchmark record shows that performance favors the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 in nearly every measurable category.