AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two AMD mobile processors into distinct roles. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX wins 10 of the 13 recorded head-to-head comparisons, including every heavy multi-threaded workload, with advantages ranging from 11.6% to 109.7%. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 counters with only 3 wins, all in single-threaded tests, where its edge is a modest 5.3% to 5.4%. The 8840HX is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, while the AI Max+ 388 leads in lightly threaded responsiveness.

The average benchmark scores confirm the separation. The 8840HX records an average score of 71797 against 49796 for the AI Max+ 388, a difference of roughly 44%. The 8840HX also sits at the 94th percentile of all CPUs in the database, versus the 90th percentile for the AI Max+ 388. The 8840HX faces rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 7 265KF (delta -0.2%), the Intel Xeon 6517P (delta -0.8%), and the Intel Xeon 6724P (delta -0.8%), placing it within 1% of those server-class parts. The AI Max+ 388's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE (delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-14600KF (delta 0.8%), a lower performance tier overall.

For users prioritizing sustained multi-core output, encryption, compression, or prime-number workloads, the 8840HX is the only rational pick from this data. For users who need the fastest single-core response and the stronger integrated GPU, the AI Max+ 388 justifies itself despite losing the overall throughput contest.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing nodes. The Ryzen 7 8840HX uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC, with the Dragon Range codename. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process from TSMC, with the Strix Halo codename. The 8840HX belongs to the 8000 series, while the AI Max+ 388 carries the Ryzen AI Max generation label.

Core counts differ substantially. The 8840HX provides 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AI Max+ 388 provides 8 cores and 16 threads. That 50% core advantage drives much of the multi-threaded performance gap. Cache configurations also differ. The 8840HX allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The AI Max+ 388 allocates more L1 per core at 80 KB, the same 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 32 MB of shared L3, half the L3 capacity.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The 8840HX supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The AI Max+ 388 supports LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory. The AI Max+ 388's bandwidth is roughly three times higher, a major factor for memory-sensitive workloads even though the benchmark suite does not isolate that advantage. The 8840HX uses AMD Socket FL1, while the AI Max+ 388 uses AMD Socket FP11.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The 8840HX offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), whereas the AI Max+ 388 offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated GPU differs as well: the 8840HX pairs with the Radeon 610M, while the AI Max+ 388 pairs with the Radeon 8060S. The 8840HX has an unlocked multiplier, the AI Max+ 388 does not. Transistor counts are recorded only for the 8840HX at 13,140 million; the AI Max+ 388's count is not listed. Die sizes are similar, at 2x 71 mm² for the 8840HX and 2x 70.6 mm² for the AI Max+ 388.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single victory for the 8840HX comes in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where it scores 304 against 145 for the AI Max+ 388, a 109.7% advantage. That result indicates a massive throughput difference in integer-heavy, cache-sensitive computation. The data encryption test shows a 48.9% lead for the 8840HX, with scores of 29919 versus 20092. Data compression also favors the 8840HX by 23.8%, at 496427 against 400887.

Cinebench R23 multicore gives the 8840HX a 34.7% win, scoring 25265 versus 18759. PassMark integer math follows with a 33.7% lead (146506 versus 109588), and random string sorting shows a 34.2% lead (57971 versus 43196). The multithread test shows a 24.6% advantage (41732 versus 33486). Floating point math goes to the 8840HX by 19.3% (86747 versus 72722), and the physics test goes to the 8840HX by 18.6% (2185 versus 1843). Extended instructions favor the 8840HX by 11.6% (36527 versus 32719).

The AI Max+ 388 takes Cinebench R23 singlecore at 1960 versus 1857, a 5.3% win. PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests both record 4185 versus 3958, a 5.4% win. These are the only three victories for the AI Max+ 388, and they are consistent, but narrow.

The delta percentages show a clear pattern: the 8840HX wins by double digits in most tests, while the AI Max+ 388 wins by roughly 5% in single-threaded workloads. The 8840HX's wins are larger in magnitude than the AI Max+ 388's wins. The 8840HX also holds a 94th percentile ranking versus the 90th for the AI Max+ 388, reinforcing its overall standing in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on every major specification field except TDP, manufacturer, foundry, market segment, and production status. Both run at 55 W TDP. Both are AMD mobile parts, active in production, fabricated by TSMC.

Core and thread counts differ: 12 cores and 24 threads for the 8840HX, versus 8 cores and 16 threads for the AI Max+ 388. Base clocks differ, with the 8840HX at 2.90 GHz and the AI Max+ 388 at 3.60 GHz. Boost clocks are close but not identical: 5.10 GHz for the 8840HX, 5.00 GHz for the AI Max+ 388.

The process node differs: 5 nm for the 8840HX, 4 nm for the AI Max+ 388. The socket differs: FL1 versus FP11. L1 cache differs: 64 KB per core versus 80 KB per core. L3 cache differs: 64 MB shared versus 32 MB shared. Memory support differs: DDR5 versus LPDDR5X. Memory bus width differs: dual-channel versus quad-channel. Memory bandwidth differs: 83.2 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. ECC support differs: false for the 8840HX, true for the AI Max+ 388. PCIe generation and lane count differ: Gen 5 with 28 lanes versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 610M versus Radeon 8060S. Multiplier unlock differs: true for the 8840HX, false for the AI Max+ 388. Release dates differ: the 8840HX released on 2025-04-22, the AI Max+ 388 on 2026-01-05. Part numbers differ: 100-000001850 versus 100-000001980. The 8840HX lists transistor count at 13,140 million; the AI Max+ 388 does not list one.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins all single-threaded tests. It scores 1960 in Cinebench R23 singlecore versus 1857 for the 8840HX, and 4185 in PassMark single-thread versus 3958, a 5.4% advantage.

Q: How large is the multi-core gap?

A: The 8840HX leads Cinebench R23 multicore by 34.7%, scoring 25265 versus 18759. PassMark multithread shows a 24.6% lead for the 8840HX, at 41732 versus 33486.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The 8840HX uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AI Max+ 388 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark win for either processor?

A: The 8840HX wins the PassMark find prime numbers test by 109.7%, scoring 304 versus 145. That is the largest delta in the head-to-head set.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 7 8840HX dominates multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. Its 34.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 24.6% lead in PassMark multithread make it the stronger choice for rendering, compilation, or any workload that scales across cores. The 48.9% advantage in data encryption and 23.8% advantage in data compression point to strong performance in archiving and security-related tasks. The 109.7% lead in prime-number finding and 33.7% lead in integer math indicate excellent performance in mathematical and scientific computing. The 8840HX also wins floating point math by 19.3%, physics by 18.6%, extended instructions by 11.6%, and random string sorting by 34.2%. Its 94th percentile ranking versus 90th for the AI Max+ 388 confirms the overall performance ceiling.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins the single-threaded category. Its Cinebench R23 singlecore score of 1960 beats the 8840HX by 5.3%, and its PassMark single-thread score of 4185 beats the 8840HX by 5.4%. These wins matter for applications with limited thread scaling or for snappy UI response. The AI Max+ 388 also offers a different memory profile: quad-channel LPDDR5X at 256.0 GB/s, roughly three times the bandwidth of the 8840HX, plus ECC support. The Radeon 8060S integrated graphics is a substantial upgrade over the Radeon 610M, though the current benchmark set does not include graphics tests. The AI Max+ 388 also runs at a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.90 GHz for the 8840HX, which supports its single-thread strength.

The 8840HX wins 10 of 13 head-to-head benchmarks. The AI Max+ 388 wins 3. The 8840HX's wins are larger in percentage terms, often exceeding 30%, while the AI Max+ 388's wins stay near 5%. For users who need maximum multi-core throughput, the 8840HX is the unambiguous choice. For users who need the fastest single-core performance and the higher-bandwidth memory subsystem with ECC support, the AI Max+ 388 is the better fit. The data does not support the AI Max+ 388 as a general-purpose throughput leader, but its single-thread and memory advantages define a clear niche.