AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two 12-core, 24-thread AMD parts, with the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 dominating nearly every workload tested. Across the 11 head-to-head comparisons, the Max PRO 390 claims 9 wins, while the Embedded P185 takes only 2 — and both of those are marginal single-thread victories.

The largest single gap appears in PassMark's Find Prime Numbers test, where the Max PRO 390 scores 323 against the Embedded P185's 129, a 150.4% advantage. This is an extreme outlier even by the standards of this comparison, indicating that the Max PRO 390's higher sustained clocks and larger cache structure dramatically accelerate this integer-heavy, branch-dependent workload. The Embedded P185 simply cannot keep pace in this test, likely due to its lower base clock of 2.00 GHz compared to the Max PRO 390's 3.20 GHz.

Extended Instructions is another decisive win for the Max PRO 390, which posts 40,888 versus 26,544 for the Embedded P185 — a 54% difference. This test typically stresses SIMD and cryptographic instruction throughput, and the 64 MB of shared L3 cache on the Max PRO 390 versus 16 MB on the Embedded P185 likely plays a significant role in feeding those execution units. Physics simulation also shows a wide gap: the Max PRO 390 scores 2,773 against 1,772, a 56.5% advantage that again points to memory bandwidth and cache capacity as differentiators.

In the more mainstream multi-threaded workloads, the Max PRO 390 maintains consistent leads. PassMark Multithread shows 42,912 versus 31,817, a 34.9% margin. Integer Math delivers 148,508 against 117,832, a 26% gap. Floating Point Math follows a similar pattern: 94,666 versus 70,587, a 34.1% difference. Data Compression shows 506,170 versus 374,429, a 35.2% advantage, while Random String Sorting lands at 55,248 versus 40,557, a 36.2% gap. Data Encryption rounds out the major workloads with 26,027 versus 19,612, a 32.7% win.

The single-thread results are the only bright spot for the Embedded P185, and even there the margin is razor-thin. PassMark Single Thread shows the Embedded P185 at 3,977 against the Max PRO 390's 3,967 — a 0.3% edge. This is within noise for most workloads, but it does indicate that the Embedded P185's 5.10 GHz boost clock can edge out the Max PRO 390's 5.00 GHz in lightly threaded scenarios, despite the Max PRO 390's higher base clock.

In terms of overall average benchmark scores, the Max PRO 390 posts 63,765 while the Embedded P185 sits at 62,839. Both parts rank in the 93rd percentile against all CPUs, meaning both are firmly in the high-performance tier. The Max PRO 390's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 64,051, with a delta of -0.4% — essentially a dead heat. The Embedded P185's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX at 62,738, with a 0.2% delta in its favor. Notably, both parts also land near the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX, which scores 63,173, though the Max PRO 390 sits 0.9% above that rival while the Embedded P185 sits 0.5% below it.

# Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the clear choice for any workload that scales with multi-threaded throughput, memory bandwidth, or large cache working sets. Its 35.2% lead in Data Compression, 34.9% lead in Multithread, and 36.2% lead in Random String Sorting indicate strong performance in data processing, compression tasks, and general productivity workloads that can utilize all 24 threads. The 54% advantage in Extended Instructions makes it particularly well-suited for encryption, hashing, and other SIMD-heavy operations, while the 56.5% physics lead suggests it can handle simulation and computational physics tasks with substantially more headroom.

The 150.4% gap in Find Prime Numbers is worth emphasizing for specific use cases. This test stresses prime-number generation algorithms, which are highly dependent on integer division, modulo operations, and branch prediction. The Max PRO 390's 64 MB L3 cache versus 16 MB on the Embedded P185 likely allows more of the working set to stay resident on-die, avoiding costly memory stalls. For any application that involves heavy integer arithmetic with large lookup tables or sieve-based algorithms, the Max PRO 390 will deliver more than double the throughput.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185's wins are confined to single-threaded performance, and even there the margin is negligible. Its 3,977 single-thread score versus 3,967 for the Max PRO 390 amounts to a 0.3% difference — statistically insignificant for most real-world applications. However, in scenarios where boost clocks are the sole differentiator and the workload fits entirely within the L1 or L2 cache, the Embedded P185's 5.10 GHz boost clock can provide a marginal edge. This might matter for lightly threaded interactive workloads, low-latency control loops, or single-threaded legacy applications that cannot utilize multiple cores.

The Embedded P185 also has a 28 W TDP versus the Max PRO 390's 55 W TDP, which makes it more suited to thermally constrained embedded environments. The Max PRO 390, by contrast, requires nearly double the power budget, limiting its applicability in fanless or passively cooled designs. The Embedded P185's Socket FP8 and dual-channel memory configuration (89.6 GB/s bandwidth) are also less demanding on board design than the Max PRO 390's Socket FP11 and quad-channel memory (256.0 GB/s bandwidth), which could be a deciding factor for system integrators prioritizing power efficiency over raw performance.

# Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same manufacturing foundation — both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node — but diverge significantly in their architectural implementation. The Max PRO 390 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, while the Embedded P185 uses the Gorgon Point codename with a generation labeled "Zen 5 / Zen 5c," indicating a hybrid core configuration. This hybrid approach likely explains some of the Embedded P185's lower multi-threaded scores despite matching core and thread counts.

Cache hierarchy is a major differentiator. The Max PRO 390 offers 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Embedded P185 provides only 16 MB. Both parts have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, so the L3 difference is the primary cache-related performance driver. The 4x larger L3 on the Max PRO 390 directly correlates with its superior performance in cache-sensitive workloads like Data Compression (35.2% lead) and Find Prime Numbers (150.4% lead). The Embedded P185's smaller L3 also makes it more dependent on main memory, which is a further disadvantage given its dual-channel configuration.

Memory support differs substantially. The Max PRO 390 supports only LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. The Embedded P185 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X over a dual-channel bus, but its bandwidth is capped at 89.6 GB/s — less than a third of the Max PRO 390's peak. This explains the consistent 26-36% gaps in memory-bound workloads like Integer Math, Floating Point Math, and Data Encryption, where the Max PRO 390 can feed its cores with data far more effectively.

Socket and packaging also differ. The Max PRO 390 uses AMD Socket FP11, while the Embedded P185 uses AMD Socket FP8. The Embedded P185 is listed with a die size of 233 mm², while the Max PRO 390's die size is not specified. Both parts support PCIe Gen 4 with 16 CPU lanes, and both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Max PRO 390 pairs with a Radeon 8050S, while the Embedded P185 uses a Radeon 890M — though the benchmark data does not include GPU-specific tests, so the performance implications are not quantified here.

Clock speeds show a nuanced split. The Max PRO 390 has a 3.20 GHz base clock and a 5.00 GHz boost clock. The Embedded P185 has a 2.00 GHz base clock and a 5.10 GHz boost clock. The Max PRO 390's 60% higher base clock gives it a sustained performance advantage in all-core workloads, while the Embedded P185's 2% higher boost clock provides a marginal single-thread edge. The TDP difference — 55 W for the Max PRO 390 versus 28 W for the Embedded P185 — is directly related to this clock strategy, with the Max PRO 390 using its additional power budget to maintain higher clocks across all cores.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is decisively ahead in multi-threaded workloads. It scores 42,912 in PassMark Multithread versus 31,817 for the Embedded P185, a 34.9% advantage. This pattern repeats across Integer Math (26% lead), Floating Point Math (34.1% lead), and Data Compression (35.2% lead).

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 faster in any test?

A: Yes, but only marginally. The Embedded P185 scores 3,977 in PassMark Single Thread versus 3,967 for the Max PRO 390, a 0.3% advantage. This is the only benchmark category where it wins, and the difference is within typical measurement noise.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Max PRO 390 has an average benchmark score of 63,765, placing it 0.4% below the Intel Core i9-13900KS (64,051) and 0.9% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX (63,173). The Embedded P185 averages 62,839, which is 0.2% above the Intel Core Ultra 7 255HX (62,738) and 0.5% below the Intel Core Ultra 7 265HX.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between these two processors?

A: The largest difference is in PassMark Find Prime Numbers, where the Max PRO 390 scores 323 versus 129 for the Embedded P185 — a 150.4% advantage. This is an extreme outlier compared to the 26-56% gaps seen in most other tests.

Q: How does memory bandwidth affect these results?

A: The Max PRO 390 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Embedded P185 uses dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. This 2.86x bandwidth difference is a major factor in the Max PRO 390's consistent leads in memory-intensive workloads like Data Encryption (32.7% lead) and Random String Sorting (36.2% lead).

Q: Do both processors use the same core architecture?

A: Both use AMD's 4 nm process, but the Max PRO 390 uses Zen 5 architecture under the Strix Halo codename, while the Embedded P185 uses the Gorgon Point codename with a "Zen 5 / Zen 5c" hybrid configuration. The Max PRO 390 also has 64 MB of L3 cache versus 16 MB on the Embedded P185.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 | AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P185 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | AMD Socket FP8 |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Gorgon Point |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5) | Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c) |

| Die Size | Not specified | 233 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 16 MB |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8050S | Radeon 890M |

| Release Date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-02-28 |

| Part Number | 100-000001421 | unknown |

The two processors share identical core counts (12), thread counts (24), L1 cache (80 KB per core), L2 cache (1 MB per core), ECC support, PCIe configuration (Gen 4, 16 lanes), process node (4 nm), foundry (TSMC), and production status (Active). Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a listed launch MSRP. The Max PRO 390's 3.20 GHz base clock is 60% higher than the Embedded P185's 2.00 GHz, while the Embedded P185's 5.10 GHz boost is 2% higher. The Max PRO 390's 64 MB L3 cache is 4x larger, its memory bandwidth is 2.86x higher, and its TDP is nearly double. The Embedded P185, conversely, offers a smaller die size, dual memory type support, and a release date over a year later.