AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins all 11 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380. There are no test categories where the PRO 380 takes the lead. This is not a case of one chip winning lightly threaded tasks while the other dominates heavy parallel workloads; the Max+ 388 leads in every measured category, from single-threaded execution to physics simulation and data compression.

The largest advantage for the Max+ 388 appears in prime number computation, where it scores 145 versus 75 for the PRO 380, a 93.3% delta. This category often reflects raw integer throughput and branch handling, and the gap here is enormous. Physics simulation also shows a dramatic split, with the Max+ 388 scoring 1843 against 1120, a 64.6% advantage. The remaining PassMark categories, including integer math, floating point math, multithread, data encryption, data compression, extended instructions, and random string sorting, all land in a tight band between 34.5% and 38.7% in favor of the Max+ 388.

The closest contest is in single-threaded performance. The Max+ 388 posts 4185 in PassMark single thread, while the PRO 380 posts 3995, a modest 4.8% lead. This suggests that for lightly threaded applications, the two processors are much closer in capability, and the PRO 380 is not far behind in per-core efficiency. Yet even here, the Max+ 388 holds the win.

What does this mean for usage splits? The Max+ 388 is the clear choice for multi-threaded productivity, content creation, physics-based workloads, and any task that stresses memory bandwidth or integer performance. The PRO 380, despite losing every benchmark, remains viable for single-threaded or lightly threaded scenarios where the 4.8% gap is unlikely to be perceptible. The data shows that the PRO 380 is not a weak processor in absolute terms, it sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, but it is consistently outmatched by its larger sibling.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 5 architecture and Strix Halo codename, and both are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node. They use the same AMD Socket FP11 and target the mobile market segment. Both support LPDDR5X memory and ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The core counts differ significantly. The Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the PRO 380 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This two-core, four-thread difference is the primary driver of the multi-threaded benchmark gaps. Base clocks are identical at 3.60 GHz, but the boost clock differs: 5.00 GHz for the Max+ 388 versus 4.90 GHz for the PRO 380. The TDP is rated at 55 for both, so the additional cores and slightly higher boost clock come without a higher power envelope in the specifications.

Cache organization is another major divergence. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache, however, is 32 MB on the Max+ 388 and only 16 MB on the PRO 380. This doubling of L3 capacity likely contributes to the performance advantage in data-heavy workloads, particularly data compression and encryption, where larger working sets can stay resident on-chip.

Memory configuration also favors the Max+ 388. The Max+ 388 uses a quad-channel memory bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the PRO 380 uses a dual-channel bus with 128.0 GB/s. This is a 2x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which can heavily influence integer math, floating point math, and multithreaded scaling. The integrated graphics differ as well: the Max+ 388 carries a Radeon 8060S, while the PRO 380 carries a Radeon 8040S. The die size is recorded as 2x 70.6 mm² for the Max+ 388, while no die size is recorded for the PRO 380.

Release dates differ by a year: the PRO 380 was released on 2025-01-05, and the Max+ 388 on 2026-01-05. Both are listed as Active in production status. The part numbers are 100-000001425 for the PRO 380 and 100-000001980 for the Max+ 388.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PassMark suite provides eleven comparable data points. The Max+ 388 wins every one, but the margins tell different stories.

In data compression, the Max+ 388 scores 400887 against 293595, a 36.5% advantage. This is a substantial gap for a workload that often benefits from both cache capacity and memory bandwidth. The Max+ 388's 32 MB L3 and quad-channel memory likely explain part of this. Data encryption shows a 38.5% lead, with scores of 20092 and 14502. Encryption workloads are sensitive to instruction throughput and memory latency, and the Max+ 388's larger cache and higher boost clock help here.

Extended instructions, a test that exercises SIMD and vector extensions, shows a 34.5% delta (32719 vs 24333). Prime number finding is the outlier: 145 versus 75, a 93.3% gap. This is the single largest relative difference in the entire suite. Floating point math shows a 37% lead (72722 vs 53084), while integer math shows 37.3% (109588 vs 79789). These two math workloads are closely aligned in their deltas, suggesting that the core count and memory bandwidth advantages scale similarly across both integer and floating point operations.

The multithread test shows a 38.1% lead (33486 vs 24244). Physics simulation shows a 64.6% lead (1843 vs 1120), the second-largest margin after prime numbers. Random string sorting shows 38.7% (43196 vs 31153). The single-threaded tests, listed twice in the data as passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread with identical scores of 4185 and 3995, show only a 4.8% delta. This confirms that the architectural core design is close, and the PRO 380 is not far behind on a per-thread basis.

The consistency of the 34% to 39% range across most multi-threaded tests, paired with the much larger gaps in prime numbers and physics, suggests that the Max+ 388's advantage is not merely about core count. The memory bandwidth difference and cache size difference likely amplify performance in workloads that are memory-bound or that require large working sets.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is faster, scoring 4185 in PassMark single thread versus 3995 for the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380. The delta is 4.8%.

Q: How much faster is the Max+ 388 in multi-threaded tests?

A: In the PassMark multithread test, the Max+ 388 scores 33486 against 24244, a 38.1% advantage.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename and are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node.

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

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the Max+ 388 scores 145 and the PRO 380 scores 75, a 93.3% difference.

Q: Is the memory configuration different between the two?

A: Yes. The Max+ 388 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the PRO 380 uses a dual-channel bus with 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Do both processors have the same amount of L3 cache?

A: No. The Max+ 388 has 32 MB shared L3, while the PRO 380 has 16 MB shared L3.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 outperforms the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 in every recorded benchmark, with margins ranging from 4.8% in single-threaded tests to 93.3% in prime number computation. The Max+ 388 should be the pick for anyone prioritizing multi-threaded performance, memory bandwidth, or cache-sensitive workloads. Its quad-channel memory and 32 MB L3 cache give it a structural advantage that the PRO 380 cannot overcome.

The PRO 380 is not a poor processor on its own terms. It sits in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235A and Intel Core Ultra 5 245HX, both of which it trails by only 0.1% and 0.2% respectively in average benchmark score. The PRO 380 also edges the AMD Ryzen 9 3900 and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D by 0.5% in average score. In the context of the broader CPU market, the PRO 380 is competitive.

However, when placed beside the Max+ 388, the PRO 380's 6 cores, 12 threads, 16 MB L3, and dual-channel memory leave it at a consistent disadvantage. For users who need maximum throughput in physics, compression, encryption, or math-heavy tasks, the Max+ 388 is the only choice from these two. For users whose workloads are predominantly single-threaded, the PRO 380's 4.8% deficit may be acceptable, especially if the system requirements favor a smaller core configuration. The recorded data does not show any scenario where the PRO 380 wins, so the recommendation follows the benchmarks: the Max+ 388 for performance, the PRO 380 for lighter workloads where its lower core count and memory configuration are sufficient.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 380 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Radeon 8040S |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | Not recorded |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001980 | 100-000001425 |

Both processors share the same base clock of 3.60 GHz, 55 TDP, AMD Socket FP11, Zen 5 architecture, Strix Halo codename, 4 nm process node, TSMC foundry, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, LPDDR5X memory support, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multiplier. The core count, thread count, boost clock, L3 cache, memory bus, memory bandwidth, integrated graphics, die size, release date, and part number are the only differing fields in the database.