AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX reaches a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 tops out at 5.10 GHz. The 8940HX holds a 0.20 GHz advantage in maximum clock speed.

Q: How do the two chips compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 offers 256.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth through its quad-channel LPDDR5X interface, versus 83.2 GB/s on the Ryzen 9 8940HX's dual-channel DDR5 setup. That is a 3.1x difference in theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins every single-threaded benchmark in the database. It leads by 6.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core, 6.6% in PassMark single-thread, and 7.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ryzen 9 8940HX has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 does not. This means the 8940HX allows user adjustment of clock multipliers, whereas the AI Max+ 395 is locked.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The Ryzen 9 8940HX uses a 5 nm process node, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses a 4 nm node. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the smaller node typically enables higher efficiency.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 9 8940HX does not. This makes the AI Max+ 395 more suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages within AMD's mobile lineup. The Ryzen 9 8940HX belongs to the 8000 series and uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Dragon Range codename. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the newer Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename. This generational gap explains many of the performance differences observed in the benchmark data.

Both chips feature 16 cores and 32 threads, so core count is not a differentiator. However, the cache hierarchy differs. The Ryzen 9 8940HX has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of L3 cache. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a larger L1 cache at 80 KB per core, the same 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 cache on the AI Max+ 395 likely contributes to its advantage in single-threaded and latency-sensitive workloads.

The process technology also separates these two. The 8940HX is built on TSMC's 5 nm node, while the AI Max+ 395 uses a 4 nm node. The die sizes are nearly identical at 2x 71 mm² for the 8940HX and 2x 70.6 mm² for the AI Max+ 395. The transistor count is listed only for the 8940HX at 13,140 million, with no figure recorded for the AI Max+ 395.

Socket compatibility differs as well. The 8940HX uses AMD Socket FL1, while the AI Max+ 395 uses AMD Socket FP11. These are not interchangeable, meaning the two processors target different platform designs.

The integrated graphics are a major architectural divergence. The 8940HX comes with a Radeon 610M, while the AI Max+ 395 features a Radeon 8060S. The Radeon 8060S is a significantly more capable integrated GPU, which aligns with the AI Max+ 395's positioning as a high-performance APU.

Memory support also reflects different design priorities. The 8940HX uses dual-channel DDR5, while the AI Max+ 395 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X. The AI Max+ 395 also supports ECC memory, which the 8940HX lacks. PCIe connectivity favors the 8940HX with Gen 5 and 28 lanes, versus Gen 4 and 16 lanes on the AI Max+ 395.

The base clocks differ notably: the 8940HX runs at 2.40 GHz, while the AI Max+ 395 starts at 3.00 GHz. The boost clocks reverse this trend, with the 8940HX hitting 5.30 GHz and the AI Max+ 395 reaching 5.10 GHz. Both processors are rated at 55 W TDP.

The release dates place the AI Max+ 395 earlier, launching on 2025-01-05, while the 8940HX followed on 2025-04-22. The AI Max+ 395 has a locked multiplier, whereas the 8940HX is unlocked.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 dominates the benchmark comparison, winning 14 of 15 head-to-head tests. Its strengths are most pronounced in physics simulation, prime number finding, and extended instruction workloads. The PassMark physics test shows the largest gap, with the AI Max+ 395 scoring 3,481 versus 2,104 for the 8940HX, a 39.6% advantage. This suggests the Zen 5 architecture handles complex computational physics scenarios substantially better.

In extended instruction workloads, the AI Max+ 395 leads by 15.2% (56,346 versus 47,802), indicating superior handling of specialized instruction sets. Floating-point math also favors the AI Max+ 395 by 11.5% (128,682 versus 113,921), which points to stronger numerical computation capabilities.

The AI Max+ 395 also wins in all multicore rendering benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 35,314 versus 32,521, a 7.9% lead. Cinebench R15 multicore shows a smaller 2% advantage (5,463 versus 5,355). The single-core results follow a similar pattern, with the AI Max+ 395 leading by 6.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core and 7.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Data compression and integer math both show a 5.7% advantage for the AI Max+ 395. Multithread performance is 9.5% better on the AI Max+ 395 (54,934 versus 49,731). Random string sorting shows only a minimal 1% difference, making it the closest benchmark in the entire comparison.

The Ryzen 9 8940HX wins exactly one benchmark: data encryption. It scores 39,318 versus 35,455 for the AI Max+ 395, a 10.9% advantage. This suggests the 8940HX has a particular strength in encryption-related workloads, possibly due to its higher boost clock or specific instruction handling.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The base clock is 2.40 GHz for the 8940HX and 3.00 GHz for the AI Max+ 395, a 0.60 GHz difference. Boost clocks are closer, with the 8940HX at 5.30 GHz and the AI Max+ 395 at 5.10 GHz, a 0.20 GHz difference in favor of the 8940HX.

Cache configurations differ in L1 size: 64 KB per core for the 8940HX versus 80 KB per core for the AI Max+ 395. L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core, and L3 cache is 64 MB for both, though the AI Max+ 395's L3 is listed as shared.

Memory support diverges completely. The 8940HX supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The AI Max+ 395 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. ECC support exists only on the AI Max+ 395.

PCIe configuration favors the 8940HX with Gen 5 and 28 lanes, while the AI Max+ 395 uses Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ: Radeon 610M on the 8940HX versus Radeon 8060S on the AI Max+ 395.

The process node is 5 nm for the 8940HX and 4 nm for the AI Max+ 395. Socket types are FL1 for the 8940HX and FP11 for the AI Max+ 395. The multiplier is unlocked on the 8940HX and locked on the AI Max+ 395.

The 8940HX has a listed transistor count of 13,140 million, while no transistor figure is recorded for the AI Max+ 395. Die sizes are similar at 2x 71 mm² and 2x 70.6 mm². Part numbers are 100-000001849 for the 8940HX and 100-000001099 for the AI Max+ 395.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the magnitude varies significantly across tests. The largest victory for the AI Max+ 395 comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 3,481 against 2,104 for the 8940HX. This 39.6% lead is the single biggest margin in the entire comparison and suggests a fundamental architectural advantage in physics simulation workloads.

Prime number finding shows the second-largest gap. The AI Max+ 395 scores 303 versus 251 for the 8940HX, a 17.2% advantage. This indicates better performance in integer-heavy computational loops. Extended instructions follow closely with a 15.2% lead (56,346 versus 47,802), showing the AI Max+ 395 handles advanced instruction sets more efficiently.

Floating-point math favors the AI Max+ 395 by 11.5%, with scores of 128,682 versus 113,921. Multithread performance shows a 9.5% lead for the AI Max+ 395 (54,934 versus 49,731). Cinebench R23 multicore results in a 7.9% advantage (35,314 versus 32,521), while Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 7.6% gap (316 versus 292).

Single-thread performance in PassMark shows a 6.6% lead for the AI Max+ 395 (4,147 versus 3,874), consistent with Cinebench R23 single-core's 6.2% advantage (2,044 versus 1,917). Data compression and integer math both show 5.7% leads for the AI Max+ 395, with scores of 690,650 versus 650,984 and 200,665 versus 189,221 respectively.

Cinebench R15 multicore shows the smallest multicore gap at 2% (5,463 versus 5,355). Random string sorting is the closest overall benchmark, with the AI Max+ 395 leading by just 1% (76,177 versus 75,381).

The single bright spot for the 8940HX is data encryption. It wins 39,318 versus 35,455, a 10.9% advantage. This is the only benchmark where the 8940HX outperforms the AI Max+ 395, and it does so by a substantial margin. This result indicates that encryption workloads may benefit from the 8940HX's higher boost clock or specific architectural features of Zen 4.

The overall average benchmark score places the 8940HX at 81,103 with a 95th percentile ranking among all CPUs. The AI Max+ 395 has an average score of 77,740, also at the 95th percentile. The nearest rivals for the 8940HX include the Intel Xeon w5-3535X at 81,115 and the Intel Core i9-14900KS at 81,127, both with 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 sits at 80,762 with a 0.4% delta.

For the AI Max+ 395, the nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 76,513 with a 1.6% delta, and the Intel Core i9-14900K at 79,097 with a -1.7% delta. The AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX appears at 76,212 with a 2% delta.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most use cases. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins 14 of 15 benchmarks, with particularly strong showings in physics, prime number finding, and extended instructions. Its 39.6% lead in PassMark physics and 17.2% lead in prime numbers indicate that workloads involving complex calculations, simulation, or number-crunching will see substantial benefits from choosing the AI Max+ 395.

The AI Max+ 395 also offers advantages in memory bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s, which supports its quad-channel LPDDR5X configuration. This makes it the better choice for memory-intensive applications. Its ECC memory support adds reliability for professional workloads. The larger L1 cache and newer Zen 5 architecture contribute to its consistent single-threaded wins across all benchmarks.

The Ryzen 9 8940HX remains the better option for specific scenarios. Its 10.9% lead in data encryption suggests encryption, decryption, and related security workloads will perform better on this chip. The unlocked multiplier offers overclocking flexibility that the AI Max+ 395 cannot match. The 8940HX also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes, which may matter for systems requiring high-bandwidth expansion.

For general-purpose mobile computing, the AI Max+ 395 is the superior processor according to the recorded data. Its wins span rendering, math, compression, and multithreaded workloads. The Radeon 8060S integrated graphics also provide a much stronger GPU solution than the Radeon 610M, though no GPU benchmarks are recorded in this comparison.

The Ryzen 9 8940HX should be considered for users prioritizing encryption performance or overclocking capability. Its higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz and unlocked multiplier give it an edge in scenarios where these factors matter more than the architectural improvements of Zen 5.

Both processors sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, indicating top-tier performance regardless of choice. The average benchmark scores place them close together in the broader market context, even though the head-to-head comparison favors the AI Max+ 395 in nearly every test.

The practical recommendation from the data is straightforward: the AI Max+ 395 is the stronger processor for most workloads, while the 8940HX serves a narrower set of use cases centered on encryption and overclocking. For users who need maximum single-threaded performance, multicore rendering, or physics simulation, the AI Max+ 395 is the clear pick. For those who require encryption throughput or plan to overclock, the 8940HX remains a viable alternative.