AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 represent two distinct philosophies in processor design, separated by a generation and aimed at different market segments. The 5755G is a desktop part built on the mature Zen 3 architecture, while the AI Max PRO 380 is a mobile-first, Zen 5-based processor. Benchmark data reveals a near-split in workload dominance, with the older desktop chip winning 4 of 11 tests and the newer mobile chip taking 7. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, the architectural reasons for those differences, and what the numbers indicate about their respective strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a clear division of labor based on workload characteristics. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G asserts its dominance in tasks that are heavily dependent on raw integer throughput and memory bandwidth. Its most significant victory comes in passmark_integer_math, where it scores 90,270 against the AI Max PRO 380’s 79,789, a decisive 13.1% advantage. This is complemented by a 34.1% lead in passmark_data_encryption (19,450 vs. 14,502), a 5.2% win in passmark_random_string_sorting (32,771 vs. 31,153), and a narrow 0.7% edge in passmark_data_compression (295,730 vs. 293,595). These wins point to a processor that handles data manipulation and serialized compute tasks with high efficiency.

Conversely, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 takes the lead in workloads that favor newer instruction sets, higher clock speeds, and floating-point execution. Its most commanding victory is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, scoring 75 versus 58, a 22.7% margin. It also wins passmark_extended_instructions by 15.8% (24,333 vs. 20,487) and passmark_single_thread by 15.7% (3,995 vs. 3,366). The AI Max PRO 380 further solidifies its position with a 8.7% win in passmark_physics (1,120 vs. 1,022), a 4.3% advantage in passmark_floating_point_math (53,084 vs. 50,778), and a 1.6% lead in passmark_multithread (24,244 vs. 23,858). The data suggests the AI Max PRO 380 is the superior choice for modern, lightly-threaded applications and those that leverage advanced vector instructions, while the 5755G is better suited for traditional integer-heavy server or desktop tasks.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divergence lies in their microarchitectures and process nodes. The 5755G utilizes Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a die size of 180 mm² and 10,700 million transistors. In contrast, the AI Max PRO 380 is built on the newer Zen 5 architecture using a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. This generational leap is a primary driver of the performance differences, particularly in single-threaded and instruction-heavy workloads.

Core configurations also differ significantly. The 5755G offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AI Max PRO 380 provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the AI Max PRO 380 compensates with a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus 4.60 GHz, though its base clock is lower at 3.60 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The cache hierarchy reflects the architectural shift: the 5755G has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, whereas the AI Max PRO 380 features larger 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. Both share a 16 MB L3 cache, but the 5755G’s is listed as a single block while the AI Max PRO’s is explicitly shared.

Memory support is another critical separator. The 5755G supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The AI Max PRO 380 uses LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but achieves a much higher bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The AI Max PRO 380 also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the 5755G. Platform connectivity differs as well: the 5755G uses AMD Socket AM4 with PCIe Gen 3 (16 lanes), while the AI Max PRO 380 uses AMD Socket FP11 with PCIe Gen 4 (16 lanes). The integrated graphics also differ, with the 5755G featuring a Radeon Vega 8 and the AI Max PRO 380 a Radeon 8040S.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 is significantly faster in single-threaded tasks. It scores 3,995 in the passmark_single_thread test, which is 15.7% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G’s score of 3,366.

Q: Is the older AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G better at any compute task?

A: Yes. Benchmark results indicate it is superior in integer-heavy and memory-latency-sensitive workloads. It leads by 13.1% in integer math and by 34.1% in data encryption, showing a clear advantage in these specific areas.

Q: How do their core counts and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The 5755G offers two more cores and four more threads.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for these two CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G supports DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 supports LPDDR5X memory with a significantly higher bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Are there differences in the process node and architecture?

A: Yes, they are from different generations. The 5755G uses the older Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process. The AI Max PRO 380 uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process.

Q: Which processor is intended for which market?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G is a desktop processor for the AMD Socket AM4 platform. The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 is a mobile processor for the AMD Socket FP11 platform.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Zen 3 (Cezanne) vs. Zen 5 (Strix Halo)
• Process Node: 7 nm vs. 4 nm
• Cores: 8 vs. 6
• Threads: 16 vs. 12
• Base Clock: 3.80 GHz vs. 3.60 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.60 GHz vs. 4.90 GHz
• L1 Cache: 64 KB (per core) vs. 80 KB (per core)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB (per core) vs. 1 MB (per core)
• Memory Support: DDR4 vs. LPDDR5X
• Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s vs. 128.0 GB/s
• ECC Memory Support: No vs. Yes
• PCIe Version: Gen 3, 16 Lanes vs. Gen 4, 16 Lanes
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 vs. AMD Socket FP11
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon Vega 8 vs. Radeon 8040S
• Market Segment: Desktop vs. Mobile
• Transistor Count: 10,700 million vs. Not specified
• Die Size: 180 mm² vs. Not specified

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking discrepancy is in passmark_data_encryption, where the 5755G posts a score of 19,450 against the AI Max PRO 380’s 14,502. This 34.1% delta is the largest single-test margin in either direction and highlights the 5755G’s strength in cryptographic workloads, likely due to its higher core count and mature architecture. Conversely, the AI Max PRO 380’s largest win is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, with a score of 75 versus 58, a 22.7% advantage that underscores the efficiency of the Zen 5 core in algorithmic integer loops.

In single-threaded performance, the AI Max PRO 380’s 3,995 score is 15.7% higher than the 5755G’s 3,366, a clear indicator of its architectural superiority per clock. This advantage extends to passmark_extended_instructions, where it leads 24,333 to 20,487 (15.8% delta). The 5755G fights back in passmark_integer_math, achieving 90,270 versus 79,789 (13.1% delta), and in passmark_random_string_sorting, where it wins 32,771 to 31,153 (5.2% delta). The multithreaded score is nearly tied, with the AI Max PRO 380 winning 24,244 to 23,858 (1.6% delta), showing that the 5755G’s two extra cores nearly offset the AI Max PRO’s per-core efficiency. Ultimately, the data shows the 5755G is a specialist in integer and encryption tasks, while the AI Max PRO 380 is a generalist with superior single-thread, floating-point, and instruction-set capabilities.