AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 records an average benchmark score of 44309, placing it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 averages 37093, which places it in the 85th percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 16054, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 scores 15674. The delta is 2.4% in favor of the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450.

Q: Which processor wins in single-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 takes single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 2212 versus 2010 for the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450, a 9.1% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4060 versus 3955, a 2.6% advantage.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 uses a dual-channel DDR5, LPDDR5X bus with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors use the same core architecture and process node?

A: Yes, both are built on Zen 5 architecture and use a 4 nm TSMC process node. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 is codenamed Gorgon Point, while the Ryzen AI Max 385 is codenamed Strix Halo.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 has 8 MB of L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 5 architecture, the 4 nm TSMC process node, and the same core topology of 8 cores and 16 threads. The similarities end there. The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 belongs to the Gorgon Point generation (Ryzen AI PRO 400 series) and uses AMD Socket FP8. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 belongs to the Strix Halo generation (Ryzen AI Max series) and uses AMD Socket FP11.

The die layout differs substantially. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 has a die size of 195 mm², while the Ryzen AI Max 385 uses two dies, each 70.6 mm². This dual-die design accompanies a much larger cache allocation. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 has 8 MB of L3 cache, whereas the Ryzen AI Max 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Both retain the same per-core L1 (80 KB) and per-core L2 (1 MB) allocations.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max 385 has a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz but a slightly lower boost clock of 5.00 GHz. Thermal design power is another clear division: the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 is rated at 28 W, while the Ryzen AI Max 385 is rated at 55 W.

Memory architecture marks the largest functional difference. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s. The Ryzen AI Max 385 supports only LPDDR5X but over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and both provide PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the CPU.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 ships with the Radeon 860M, while the Ryzen AI Max 385 ships with the Radeon 8050S. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both are listed as active production parts and target the mobile market segment.

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear performance boundary between the two. The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins 13 of the 15 head-to-head tests, including every PassMark workload. Its wins are often large: data compression by 27.6%, encryption by 25.1%, extended instructions by 38.7%, prime numbers by 49.1%, floating point math by 25.5%, integer math by 19.4%, multithread by 26.5%, physics by 29.2%, and random string sorting by 26%. The Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 wins only the two Cinebench multi-core tests, and by far smaller margins: 55.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 2.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same picture. The Ryzen AI Max 385 sits at 44309, which is roughly 19.5% higher than the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450's 37093. The percentile data confirms the ranking: 88th percentile for the Max 385 versus 85th for the PRO 450. The nearest-rival comparisons also show the Max 385 competing at a higher performance tier: it sits within 0.6% of the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D and within 0.4% of the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, while the PRO 450 trades within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 7 7735H and Intel Core i7-13700.

For buyers prioritizing single-core throughput, the Ryzen AI Max 385 is the better choice. It leads in both Cinebench R23 single-core and PassMark single-thread. For buyers prioritizing multi-core rendering in Cinebench, the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 holds the edge in both R15 and R23 multi-core, despite its lower average score. The data indicates the Ryzen AI Max 385 is the stronger all-around processor, with the Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 serving as the more efficient alternative in specific multi-core tests. The PRO 450's lower TDP of 28 W versus 55 W suggests a more power-conscious design, while the Max 385's larger cache, higher memory bandwidth, and higher base clock support its dominant PassMark results.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 | AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 5.10 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Codename | Gorgon Point | Strix Halo |

| Generation | Ryzen AI PRO 400 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) | Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5, Strix Halo) |

| Die size | 195 mm² | 2x 70.6 mm² |

| L3 cache | 8 MB | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR5, LPDDR5X | LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 860M | Radeon 8050S |

| Release date | 2026-01-04 | 2025-01-05 |

| Part number | 100-000001865 | 100-000001424 |

Shared specifications include 8 cores, 16 threads, Zen 5 architecture, 4 nm TSMC process, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, ECC support, PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, mobile market segment, active production status, and a locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen AI 7 PRO 450 wins two head-to-head tests, both in Cinebench multi-core. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 2457 against 1579 for the Ryzen AI Max 385, a 55.6% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the PRO 450 scores 16054 against 15674, a 2.4% margin. These two wins show that the PRO 450's multi-core rendering performance is competitive, especially in the older R15 workload where its advantage is substantial.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 wins the remaining 13 tests, and the margins are generally wide. In single-core tests, the Max 385 takes Cinebench R15 single-core by 0.9% (222 versus 220) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 9.1% (2212 versus 2010). The PassMark single-thread test shows a 2.6% lead (4060 versus 3955). The Max 385 also holds a PassMark multithread lead of 26.5%, scoring 33705 versus 24779.

The PassMark specialty workloads reveal the Max 385's biggest advantages. Prime number finding shows the largest delta at 49.1%, with scores of 165 versus 84. Extended instructions follow at 38.7% (33873 versus 20778). Physics shows a 29.2% gap (1889 versus 1337). Data compression shows 406505 versus 294298, a 27.6% gap. Floating point math shows 71105 versus 52971, a 25.5% gap. Random string sorting shows 43725 versus 32344, a 26% gap. Encryption shows 19926 versus 14925, a 25.1% gap. Integer math shows 107046 versus 86227, a 19.4% gap.

The pattern across the head-to-head set is consistent. The Max 385 dominates in integer, floating point, encryption, compression, and physics workloads. The PRO 450's only multi-core wins are in Cinebench, which suggests its strength is specifically in rendering-oriented multi-threaded workloads rather than general compute tasks. The Max 385's 32 MB of shared L3 cache, quad-channel memory bus, and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth align with its broad PassMark superiority. The PRO 450's lower 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and 8 MB L3 cache correlate with its narrower multi-core advantage and its losses across the PassMark suite.