AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two AMD mobile processors into distinct roles. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is the multi-threaded workhorse, winning Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core tests by a massive margin: 52.6% and 28.1% respectively. If your workload scales across many cores, this is the clear choice from the benchmark results.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 counters with superior single-thread performance in the modern Cinebench R23 test, beating the HX 375 by 11.3% (2212 vs 1988). It also wins PassMark single-thread by 5% (4060 vs 3867). The Max 385 demonstrates stronger per-core efficiency, particularly in extended instruction workloads and prime number calculations, where it leads by 15.7% and 35.2% respectively.

For general productivity, the HX 375 holds the edge in integer math (12.1% ahead) and floating-point math (5.4% ahead), but the Max 385 wins PassMark multithread overall by 2.4%. The HX 375 also has the higher overall benchmark percentile (89th vs 88th) and higher average benchmark score (46030 vs 44309).

The verdict: pick the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 for heavily threaded rendering, compilation, or video encoding tasks that can use 12 cores and 24 threads. Pick the Ryzen AI Max 385 for single-thread-sensitive applications, extended instruction sets like AVX-512 workloads, and scenarios where per-core performance matters more than raw core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 11.3% (2212 vs 1988) and PassMark single-thread by 5% (4060 vs 3867). However, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 26.2% (301 vs 222).

Q: Which chip has better multi-core performance?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 dominates in Cinebench: 3334 vs 1579 in R15 (52.6% ahead) and 21812 vs 15674 in R23 (28.1% ahead). The Max 385 wins PassMark multithread by a narrow 2.4% (33705 vs 32916).

Q: What are the memory differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Max 385 also supports ECC memory, which the HX 375 does not.

Q: Which has better power efficiency?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a significantly lower TDP of 28 watts compared to the Max 385's 55 watts, making it more suitable for thinner, cooler-running laptops.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The Ryzen AI Max 385 features the Radeon 8050S, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses the Radeon 890M. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either chip.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen 5 architecture and are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, but they come from different chip families. The Ryzen AI Max 385 belongs to the Strix Halo generation (Ryzen AI Max series), while the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 belongs to the Strix Point generation (Ryzen AI 300 series).

The Max 385 uses a monolithic die design with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², whereas the HX 375 uses a single die measuring 233 mm². The Max 385 has 8 cores, all Zen 5, while the HX 375 uses a hybrid arrangement of Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores across its 12 cores, as noted in its generation field.

Cache architecture differs notably. Both have 80 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, but the Max 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, double the HX 375's 16 MB. This larger L3 cache likely contributes to the Max 385's wins in extended instruction and prime number benchmarks.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Max 385 uses quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the HX 375 uses dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Max 385 supports ECC memory; the HX 375 does not. Both use PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics differ: Radeon 8050S in the Max 385 versus Radeon 890M in the HX 375. The Max 385 uses AMD Socket FP11, while the HX 375 uses AMD Socket FP8, meaning they are not socket-compatible. The Max 385 released on 2025-01-05, about six months after the HX 375's 2024-06-30 release date.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ substantially: the Max 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.60 GHz for the Max 385 versus 2.00 GHz for the HX 375, but boost clocks are nearly identical at 5.00 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively.

TDP is another major split: 55 watts for the Max 385 versus 28 watts for the HX 375. The Max 385 has a smaller die (2x 70.6 mm² vs 233 mm²) but more L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).

Memory support differs: the Max 385 supports only LPDDR5X with quad-channel configuration and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC. The HX 375 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel configuration, 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, and no ECC.

Integrated graphics: Radeon 8050S on the Max 385, Radeon 890M on the HX 375. Sockets differ (FP11 vs FP8). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are 100-000001424 for the Max 385 and 100-000001682 for the HX 375.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the starkest contrast: the HX 375 scores 3334 versus 1579 for the Max 385, a 52.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test also favors the HX 375, 301 vs 222 (26.2% ahead). These results suggest the HX 375's higher core count and boost clock pay off in this legacy benchmark.

Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend: 21812 for the HX 375 versus 15674 for the Max 385 (28.1% ahead). However, R23 single-core flips the result: the Max 385 wins 2212 vs 1988, an 11.3% margin. This indicates the Max 385's per-core efficiency is superior in the newer Cinebench version.

PassMark results are more balanced. The Max 385 wins data compression by a razor-thin 0.4% (406505 vs 404918). The HX 375 takes data encryption by 4.2% (20802 vs 19926). Extended instructions go to the Max 385 by 15.7% (33873 vs 29269). Find prime numbers is a decisive Max 385 win: 165 vs 122, a 35.2% gap.

Floating-point math favors the HX 375 at 75153 vs 71105 (5.4% ahead), and integer math also goes to the HX 375 at 121754 vs 107046 (12.1% ahead). The Max 385 wins PassMark multithread by 2.4% (33705 vs 32916) and physics by 3.8% (1889 vs 1819). Random string sorting goes to the HX 375 by 1.9% (44552 vs 43725). PassMark single-thread (two identical entries) shows the Max 385 ahead by 5% (4060 vs 3867).

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins in multi-core rendering workloads. Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core results are decisively in its favor, with 52.6% and 28.1% leads. It also wins in integer-heavy tasks like data encryption (4.2% ahead) and integer math (12.1% ahead), plus floating-point math (5.4% ahead). The older Cinebench R15 single-core result also favors it, which may indicate better performance in legacy single-threaded software. With a 28-watt TDP, it is also the more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops.

The Ryzen AI Max 385 wins in modern single-thread performance. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an 11.3% lead, and PassMark single-thread shows a 5% lead. It excels in extended instruction workloads, beating the HX 375 by 15.7%, and in prime number calculation by 35.2%, suggesting strong SIMD and compute-heavy per-core capabilities. The Max 385 also wins PassMark multithread overall by 2.4% and physics by 3.8%, despite having only 8 cores versus 12. Its quad-channel memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support make it the choice for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, though the database does not include memory-specific benchmarks.

The overall win count is close: the Max 385 takes 8 benchmarks, the HX 375 takes 7. The Max 385 has the higher Cinebench R23 single-core score, which many modern applications favor. The HX 375 has the higher average benchmark score (46030 vs 44309) and sits at the 89th percentile versus 88th for the Max 385. The HX 375's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900HX (0.1% behind) and Intel Core Ultra 5 235 (0.1% ahead), while the Max 385 sits near the Intel Core i9-13950HX (0.1% behind) and AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (0.6% behind).