AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database positions the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 as the stronger overall processor, winning 9 of 11 head-to-head tests against the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380. The P164 achieves an average benchmark score of 52901, placing it in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Max PRO 380 averages 48171, sitting in the 90th percentile. The P164's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (0.1% ahead), Intel Xeon 634 (0.1% behind), AMD EPYC 7313P (0.6% behind), and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (0.7% behind). The Max PRO 380's closest competitors are the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A (0.1% behind), Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 9 3900 (0.5% ahead), and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D (0.5% ahead).

For users prioritizing sustained multi-threaded workloads, data compression, and integer-heavy tasks, the P164 is the clear choice. Its 8 cores and 16 threads outnumber the Max PRO 380's 6 cores and 12 threads, and the benchmark results reflect this advantage. For workloads that benefit from slightly higher base clock speed and a larger L3 cache, the Max PRO 380 holds specific wins in extended instructions and prime number finding, though these margins are narrow. The P164 suits embedded and mobile scenarios where power efficiency matters, as its 28 W TDP is far lower than the Max PRO 380's 55 W TDP. The Max PRO 380, with its higher memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s, may better serve memory-bound applications, though the recorded benchmarks show the P164 winning most throughput tests regardless.

Where Each One Wins

The P164 dominates in data compression, scoring 327891 against 293595, an 11.7% lead. This advantage extends to random string sorting, where the P164 records 34801 versus 31153, also an 11.7% gap. Integer math shows a 10.2% difference, with the P164 at 87940 and the Max PRO 380 at 79789. Data encryption follows at 10.7%, with scores of 16055 and 14502 respectively. Multithread performance favors the P164 by 6.8%, showing 25889 against 24244. Floating point math sees the P164 ahead by 5.1%, scoring 55799 versus 53084. Physics simulation also favors the P164, with 1210 versus 1120, an 8% advantage. Single-thread performance is nearly identical, with the P164 at 4029 and the Max PRO 380 at 3995, a 0.9% margin.

The Max PRO 380 wins only two tests. Extended instructions show a 0.6% advantage, with scores of 24333 versus 24193. Find prime numbers favors the Max PRO 380 by 5.3%, scoring 75 against 71. Both wins are modest in magnitude, and neither translates into a broader performance advantage across the benchmark suite. The Max PRO 380's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.00 GHz likely contributes to these two wins, but the P164's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, combined with two additional cores, drives most other results.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use TSMC's 4 nm process node and AMD's Zen 5 architecture, but they differ in codename and generation. The P164 carries the Gorgon Point codename under the Ryzen AI Embedded generation, described as Zen 5 / Zen 5c, indicating a hybrid core arrangement. The Max PRO 380 uses the Strix Halo codename under the Ryzen AI Max PRO generation, with pure Zen 5 cores. Core counts differ: the P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Max PRO 380 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Both processors share per-core cache sizes, with 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. L3 cache differs significantly: the P164 has 8 MB, while the Max PRO 380 has 16 MB shared.

Memory support diverges as well. The P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Max PRO 380 supports only LPDDR5X, also dual-channel, but provides 128.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical on paper: Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the CPU. The integrated graphics differ: the P164 uses Radeon 880M, while the Max PRO 380 uses Radeon 8040S. Sockets differ, with the P164 on AMD Socket FP8 and the Max PRO 380 on AMD Socket FP11. The P164 has a die size of 233 mm², while the Max PRO 380's die size is not recorded. Release dates differ, with the Max PRO 380 released earlier in January 2025 and the P164 in March 2026. Both processors are active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Max PRO 380 has a known part number, 100-000001425, while the P164's part number is unknown.

Process node and foundry are identical, but the hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c configuration of the P164 likely explains its higher core count at a lower TDP of 28 W versus 55 W. The Max PRO 380's larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth suggest a design aimed at reducing memory latency for certain workloads, yet the benchmark data shows the P164 winning most throughput-oriented tests. The P164's lower TDP makes it more suitable for thermally constrained embedded environments, while the Max PRO 380's higher TDP may enable sustained performance in larger mobile chassis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The P164 provides 89.6 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the Max PRO 380 provides 128.0 GB/s over dual-channel LPDDR5X only.

Q: Which processor wins in single-thread performance?

A: The P164 scores 4029 in the single-thread test, a 0.9% advantage over the Max PRO 380's 3995.

Q: How do the cache hierarchies compare?

A: Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The P164 has 8 MB of L3, while the Max PRO 380 has 16 MB shared L3.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The P164 has a TDP of 28 W, while the Max PRO 380 has a TDP of 55 W.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The P164 boosts to 5.00 GHz, while the Max PRO 380 boosts to 4.90 GHz. The Max PRO 380 has a higher base clock at 3.60 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the P164 comes in data compression, where it scores 327891 against 293595, an 11.7% margin. This test measures the efficiency of compression algorithms, and the P164's additional cores provide a clear throughput advantage. Random string sorting shows the same 11.7% gap, with scores of 34801 and 31153. This test is sensitive to memory access patterns and sorting algorithm efficiency, and the P164's higher boost clock and core count appear decisive.

Data encryption shows the P164 at 16055 versus 14502, a 10.7% lead. Encryption workloads are often parallelizable, and the P164's 16 threads outperform the Max PRO 380's 12 threads. Integer math follows with a 10.2% advantage, scoring 87940 against 79789. This test exercises arithmetic operations across all cores, and the P164's core advantage translates directly into higher scores. Multithread performance shows a 6.8% gap, with the P164 at 25889 and the Max PRO 380 at 24244. This aggregate metric reflects overall parallel capability, and the P164's architecture wins out.

Physics simulation sees the P164 ahead by 8%, with scores of 1210 and 1120. This test models rigid body dynamics and is often latency-sensitive, yet the P164 still manages a clear lead. Floating point math shows a 5.1% advantage for the P164, scoring 55799 versus 53084. While the Max PRO 380's higher base clock helps in some scenarios, the P164's extra cores and higher boost clock dominate this workload. Single-thread performance is the closest contest, with the P164 at 4029 and the Max PRO 380 at 3995, a 0.9% difference. This near parity indicates that per-core IPC is similar, and the P164's win comes from its higher boost clock.

The Max PRO 380's wins are narrow. Extended instructions show a 0.6% margin, with scores of 24333 and 24193. This test includes specialized instruction sets, and the Max PRO 380's 16 MB L3 cache may reduce memory stalls. Find prime numbers shows a 5.3% advantage for the Max PRO 380, scoring 75 against 71. This test is highly dependent on integer division and loop efficiency, and the Max PRO 380's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz provides an edge at lower core counts. Despite these two wins, the P164's overall average benchmark score of 52901 versus 48171 represents a 9.8% advantage, reinforcing its position as the higher-performing processor in this comparison.