AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 Comparison

AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 are both active mobile processors from AMD’s Ryzen AI lineup, but they occupy very different performance tiers. The database records show the Max+ PRO 395 winning every single head-to-head benchmark, with an average benchmark score of 80762 versus 40048 for the 365. That places the 365 in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the Max+ PRO 395 sits in the 95th percentile. The gap is substantial, but the two chips also differ fundamentally in core count, memory architecture, and platform positioning, which makes them suitable for different workloads despite the one-sided benchmark sweep.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins every recorded benchmark in the database, so the use-case split is defined entirely by the magnitude of its advantage rather than by any workload where the 365 comes out ahead. The 365 does not win a single one of the 15 head-to-head comparisons. For light single-threaded tasks, the difference is small: the Max+ PRO 395 leads by roughly 1% in Cinebench R15 single-core and R23 single-core, and by 5.8% in Passmark single-thread tests. Those margins are within normal run-to-run variation for short-burst workloads, so for everyday responsiveness, spreadsheet work, or web browsing, the two chips are effectively interchangeable.

The Max+ PRO 395 becomes the clear choice for multi-threaded and compute-heavy workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 35061 versus 18698 for the 365, a 46.7% advantage. Passmark multi-thread shows 51502 versus 29467, a 42.8% lead. The Max+ PRO 395 also dominates in memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks: its Passmark data compression score is 639356 versus 354510, a 44.6% gap, and data encryption is 32840 versus 18297, a 44.3% gap. The Max+ PRO 395’s quad-channel LPDDR5X memory configuration with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the 365’s dual-channel 89.6 GB/s is the primary reason for these large deltas in data-heavy workloads.

For floating-point and integer math, the Max+ PRO 395 again leads by roughly 47% in both Passmark floating-point math (120533 versus 62802) and integer math (190720 versus 101831). The largest single delta is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Max+ PRO 395 scores 284 versus 117, a 58.8% advantage, indicating a strong advantage in workloads that rely on pure CPU instruction throughput. In short, the 365 is a capable mainstream mobile processor for general use, while the Max+ PRO 395 is a high-end part aimed at demanding multi-threaded, memory-intensive, and professional workloads.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 than the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 in multi-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Max+ PRO 395 scores 35061 versus 18698 for the 365, a 46.7% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5247 versus 2842, a 45.8% lead.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 wins?

A: No. The database records 15 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, and the Max+ PRO 395 wins all 15. The closest margins are in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core, where the Max+ PRO 395 leads by only 1%.

Q: What explains the large performance gap in data compression and encryption?

A: The Max+ PRO 395 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 365 uses dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s. In Passmark data compression, the Max+ PRO 395 scores 639356 versus 354510, and in data encryption it scores 32840 versus 18297.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The Max+ PRO 395 leads by 1% in Cinebench R15 single-core (306 versus 303) and R23 single-core (2012.5 versus 1992). In Passmark single-thread, it leads by 5.8% (4078 versus 3841).

Q: What is the difference in overall benchmark percentile ranking?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 ranks in the 87th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 ranks in the 95th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Max+ PRO 395’s dominance is consistent across all 15 recorded benchmarks, but the size of the win varies by workload type. The smallest wins are in single-core tests. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 306 versus 303, a 1% delta, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2012.5 versus 1992, also a 1% delta. Passmark single-thread shows a slightly larger 5.8% gap, with 4078 versus 3841. These numbers confirm that the Zen 5 core architecture is similar in per-core performance, and the Max+ PRO 395’s higher 5.10 GHz boost clock versus 5.00 GHz on the 365 provides only a marginal edge.

The multi-core tests reveal the true separation. Cinebench R23 multi-core is the most commonly cited all-core workload: the Max+ PRO 395 scores 35061, which is 46.7% higher than the 365’s 18698. Cinebench R15 multi-core follows the same pattern, 5247 versus 2842, a 45.8% delta. Passmark multi-thread shows 51502 versus 29467, a 42.8% advantage. These deltas align closely with the core count difference: the Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 365 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

The memory-bound tests show the impact of the memory subsystem. Passmark data compression favors the Max+ PRO 395 by 44.6% (639356 versus 354510), and data encryption by 44.3% (32840 versus 18297). Random string sorting, another memory-heavy test, shows a 43.8% gap (70150 versus 39447). The quad-channel memory bus on the Max+ PRO 395 provides 256.0 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s on the 365, which explains why these specific workloads show such large deltas even beyond the core count difference.

The largest single delta is in Passmark find prime numbers: 284 versus 117, a 58.8% advantage for the Max+ PRO 395. This test is highly sensitive to integer execution throughput and clock speed, and the combination of more cores and a higher boost clock gives the Max+ PRO 395 a disproportionate edge. Floating-point math and integer math both show about a 47% gap (120533 versus 62802 and 190720 versus 101831, respectively), while extended instructions show a 51.8% gap (52067 versus 25113). Physics simulation in Passmark shows a 46.6% gap (3189 versus 1704). Across the board, the Max+ PRO 395 delivers roughly 1.8 to 2.4 times the performance of the 365 in multi-threaded and memory-intensive tasks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clock differs significantly: the 365 runs at 2.00 GHz, while the Max+ PRO 395 runs at 3.00 GHz. Boost clock is closer, 5.00 GHz versus 5.10 GHz, but still favors the Max+ PRO 395. Thermal design power (TDP) also differs, with the 365 rated at 28 W and the Max+ PRO 395 rated at 55 W, reflecting the larger core count and memory controller.

The socket and platform differ as well. The 365 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the Max+ PRO 395 uses AMD Socket FP11. Both are mobile sockets, but they are not interchangeable. The 365 is part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation (Strix Point), while the Max+ PRO 395 is part of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation (Strix Halo). Both use the Zen 5 architecture and are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process, but the 365 has a die size of 233 mm², while the Max+ PRO 395’s die size is not recorded in the database.

Cache configuration differs substantially. Both have 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is very different: the 365 has 16 MB of L3, while the Max+ PRO 395 has 64 MB of shared L3. This fourfold increase in L3 cache gives the Max+ PRO 395 a significant advantage in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set. Memory support also differs: the 365 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Max+ PRO 395 supports only LPDDR5X. The memory bus is dual-channel on the 365 versus quad-channel on the Max+ PRO 395, and the memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the Max+ PRO 395 but not on the 365.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The 365 uses the Radeon 880M, while the Max+ PRO 395 uses the Radeon 8060S. Both are mobile parts with PCIe Gen 4 and 16 lanes (CPU only), and both have locked multipliers. The release dates are distinct: the 365 released on 2024-06-30, while the Max+ PRO 395 released on 2025-01-05. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen 5 core architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process, but their overall designs target different segments. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 365, codenamed Strix Point, belongs to the Ryzen AI 300 generation, which combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The database lists its generation as “Ryzen AI 300 (Zen 5 / Zen 5c)”, indicating a hybrid core configuration. The Max+ PRO 395, codenamed Strix Halo, belongs to the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO generation and uses only full Zen 5 cores, listed as “Ryzen AI Max+ PRO (Zen 5)”. This distinction is important because the 365’s lower-power design likely relies on denser Zen 5c cores for some of its 10 cores, while the Max+ PRO 395 uses all full-size Zen 5 cores for maximum performance.

The cache hierarchy reflects the architectural difference. While L1 and L2 are identical per core, the L3 cache is a major differentiator: the 365 has 16 MB, while the Max+ PRO 395 has 64 MB shared. This larger shared L3 cache is typical of high-end CPU designs intended for large working sets and multi-threaded server-like workloads. The Max+ PRO 395 also supports ECC memory, which is a feature rarely found in consumer mobile CPUs and indicates a professional or workstation orientation.

The memory controller is another architectural divergence. The 365 uses a dual-channel memory bus with DDR5 and LPDDR5X support, while the Max+ PRO 395 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X-only bus. The resulting bandwidth difference, 89.6 GB/s versus 256.0 GB/s, is one of the most significant architectural gaps between the two. The Max+ PRO 395’s integrated GPU, the Radeon 8060S, is also likely larger and more capable than the Radeon 880M in the 365, though the database does not record GPU-specific benchmarks. Both processors use AMD Socket FP8 and FP11 respectively, which are physically different and not cross-compatible. The Max+ PRO 395’s higher 55 W TDP versus 28 W for the 365 indicates it is designed for thicker, higher-performance laptops rather than slim ultraportables.