AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G vs AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data separates these two AMD processors along clear lines. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 delivers the broader performance envelope, winning 9 of 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with its advantages ranging from roughly 28% to 45% depending on the workload. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G counters with exact single-thread parity and a much lower thermal envelope, making it the appropriate choice for systems where the 65 W desktop socket and AM5 platform matter more than raw multi-thread throughput.

The Ryzen AI Max 385 is the pick for users who prioritize compute density in a mobile chassis. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache produce a PassMark multithread score of 33705, which is 30.3% ahead of the 440G's 23487. The Max 385 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 44309 against the 440G's 46187, though the 440G actually posts the better aggregate figure, a reversal that shows how single-thread results and a few specific workloads can flip the overall impression.

The Ryzen AI 5 440G is the choice for desktop builders who need AM5 compatibility, a 65 W TDP, and an unlocked multiplier. Its single-thread PassMark score of 4060 exactly matches the Max 385, and its average benchmark score of 46187 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900HX, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, and 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P. The Max 385, in contrast, sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core i9-13950HX and trails the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D by 0.6%.

Neither processor dominates the other categorically. The Max 385 wins every multi-thread and data-processing test in the head-to-head set. The 440G wins only the two single-thread tests, and only by virtue of an exact tie. The deciding factor is platform: the 440G targets desktop AM5 with a 65 W power budget, the Max 385 targets mobile FP11 with a 55 W TDP but a larger, more capable memory subsystem.

Architecture Differences

The two chips share a 4 nm TSMC process node and per-core cache geometry, but diverge in nearly every other structural element. The Ryzen AI 5 440G uses the Gorgon Point codename and belongs to the Ryzen AI 400 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max 385 uses the Strix Halo codename with pure Zen 5 architecture, 8 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 3.60 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both chips allocate 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The 440G has 8 MB of L3, while the Max 385 carries 32 MB of shared L3, a fourfold increase that explains part of its advantage in data-heavy workloads. The die sizes also differ: the 440G measures 195 mm², while the Max 385 uses two dies of 70.6 mm² each, suggesting a chiplet design versus the 440G's monolithic approach.

Memory support marks the largest architectural gap. The 440G runs DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Max 385 runs LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s, nearly three times the memory throughput. Both support ECC memory, but the Max 385's wider memory path gives it a structural advantage in any workload that saturates bandwidth, such as data compression and random string sorting.

Other platform differences: the 440G uses AMD Socket AM5 with 12 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and an unlocked multiplier, while the Max 385 uses AMD Socket FP11 with 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes and a locked multiplier. The integrated graphics also differ, with the 440G carrying a Radeon 840M and the Max 385 carrying a Radeon 8050S. The 440G's release date is 2026-02-28, while the Max 385's is 2025-01-05, making the mobile part the earlier design.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI Max 385 wins every workload that benefits from additional cores, more cache, and higher memory bandwidth. Its PassMark multithread score of 33705 versus 23487 confirms a 30.3% lead in parallel throughput. Data compression shows a 28% gap (406505 versus 292735), data encryption a 31.8% gap (19926 versus 13585), and extended instructions a 39% gap (33873 versus 20648). The Max 385 also leads in integer math by 33.4% (107046 versus 71251), floating-point math by 35.7% (71105 versus 45711), prime number finding by 45.5% (165 versus 90), physics by 29.6% (1889 versus 1329), and random string sorting by 28.9% (43725 versus 31106).

The Ryzen AI 5 440G wins exactly one category in the head-to-head set: single-thread performance, and only by a tie. Both chips score 4060 in PassMark single-thread tests, a result that the database records as a win for the 440G because of the delta percentage of zero. The 440G also posts a higher average benchmark score overall, 46187 versus 44309, which reflects its stronger showing in the single-thread domain and a narrower gap in some workloads than the head-to-head deltas suggest.

For workloads that fit within a single core's reach, the two chips are indistinguishable. For anything that scales across cores, threads, or memory channels, the Max 385 is the clear winner, with margins that grow as the workload becomes more parallel or memory-bound. The 440G's advantage is platform-level: it fits in a desktop AM5 socket, supports an unlocked multiplier, and draws 65 W, which is actually 10 W more than the Max 385's 55 W TDP, but it does so with fewer cores and a narrower memory bus.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 5 440G has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-thread performance?

A: They are exactly tied. Both score 4060 in the PassMark single-thread test, and both score 4060 in the PassMark singlethread test. The database records the 440G as the winner on delta percentage of zero.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 supports LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s. The Ryzen AI 5 440G supports DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The Ryzen AI 5 440G has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI 5 440G has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Q: Which processor is unlocked for overclocking?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 440G has an unlocked multiplier. The Ryzen AI Max 385 has a locked multiplier.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 440G has an average benchmark score of 46187. The Ryzen AI Max 385 has an average benchmark score of 44309. The 440G sits 0.2% above the Intel Core i9-13900HX, while the Max 385 sits 0.1% below the Intel Core i9-13950HX.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single margin in the head-to-head set belongs to the Ryzen AI Max 385 in PassMark prime number finding, where it scores 165 against the 440G's 90, a 45.5% advantage. This workload is highly dependent on integer throughput and cache behavior, and the Max 385's 32 MB of shared L3 plus two extra cores explains the wide gap. The second largest margin is in extended instructions, where the Max 385 leads 33873 to 20648, a 39% gap. That test stresses SIMD and specialized instruction paths, where the Max 385's Zen 5 architecture and higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz provide a clear edge.

Floating-point math shows a 35.7% gap, with the Max 385 at 71105 versus 45711. Integer math follows at 33.4%, with scores of 107046 and 71251. Data encryption shows a 31.8% margin (19926 versus 13585), while multithread performance trails at 30.3% (33705 versus 23487). Physics simulation lands at a 29.6% gap (1889 versus 1329), random string sorting at 28.9% (43725 versus 31106), and data compression at 28% (406505 versus 292735).

The two single-thread tests are the only benchmarks where the 440G holds ground. Both chips record 4060 in PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, producing a delta percentage of zero. The database assigns the win to the 440G, but the practical interpretation is parity: neither chip has a single-core advantage over the other.

The overall benchmark distribution shows the Max 385 winning 9 of 11 comparisons, with the 440G winning 2 (both by tie). The Max 385's average benchmark score of 44309 places it among comparable parts: 0.1% behind the Intel Core i9-13950HX, 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-13600, 0.4% behind the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, and 0.6% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D. The 440G's average of 46187 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900HX, 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 5 235, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, and 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 4364P.

The data confirms a straightforward split: the Max 385 is the performance leader in every parallel and data-intensive test, while the 440G matches it in single-thread work and posts a higher aggregate average, likely due to its stronger single-thread showing and the fact that several head-to-head deltas, though large in percentage terms, do not dominate the average as much as the multithread scores might suggest. The 440G also carries a higher TDP of 65 W versus the Max 385's 55 W, an inversion that makes the Max 385 the more efficient choice in terms of performance per watt for its winning workloads.