AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 reveals a split personality. The Max+ 388 wins 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, but the Max PRO 385 takes the most dramatic victories in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Max PRO 385 scores 28424 against 18759 for the Max+ 388, a 34% gap. The single-core result is even more lopsided: the Max PRO 385 posts 4012 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Max+ 388 manages only 1960, a 51.1% deficit. Cinebench R15 single-core follows the same pattern, with the Max PRO 385 scoring 404 versus 298, a 26.2% advantage.

The Max+ 388 counters across the Passmark suite. In Passmark data compression, it scores 400887 against 379448, a 5.7% lead. Data encryption shows 20092 versus 18978, a 5.9% edge. Extended instructions deliver 32719 against 31442, a 4.1% margin. The Max+ 388 wins floating point math 72722 to 69580 (4.5%), integer math 109588 to 105056 (4.3%), and multithread 33486 to 32075 (4.4%). Physics testing shows the largest Passmark gap: 1843 versus 1711, a 7.7% lead. Random string sorting favors the Max+ 388 at 43196 against 40784, a 5.9% margin. Passmark single-thread has the Max+ 388 at 4185 versus 3995, a 4.8% advantage.

The one Passmark test the Max PRO 385 wins outright is find prime numbers, scoring 157 against 145, a 7.6% lead. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the two are nearly identical: 2872 for the Max+ 388 and 2865 for the Max PRO 385, a 0.2% difference that technically goes to the Max+ 388.

The average benchmark score tells a complementary story. The Max+ 388 sits at 49796, while the Max PRO 385 trails at 43326. In percentile terms against all CPUs, the Max+ 388 ranks at the 90th percentile, and the Max PRO 385 sits at the 88th. The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. The Max+ 388 sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PE (which scores 49845), and it is 0.8% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14600KF (49394), 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900 (49228), and 1.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5755G (49196). The Max PRO 385, by contrast, is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 (43431), 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H (43210), 0.8% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 170 (43689), and 0.9% behind the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 (43704).

The data suggests the Max+ 388 is the more consistent performer across the broader Passmark workload mix, while the Max PRO 385 has a distinct advantage in rendering-oriented Cinebench tests. The Cinebench results are not minor variations; a 34% multicore gap and a 51.1% single-core gap are substantial enough to define workload suitability.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational design. They are built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. Each has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clock is 3.60 GHz on both, and boost clock is 5.00 GHz on both. The cache hierarchy is identical: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Both support LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe is Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only) on both. Both use AMD Socket FP11 and carry a 55 W TDP. Both are mobile-market parts with active production status.

The differences are concentrated in a few areas. The integrated GPU differs: the Max+ 388 uses the Radeon 8060S, while the Max PRO 385 uses the Radeon 8050S. The Max+ 388 has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the die size for the Max PRO 385 is not recorded in the database. The generation labels differ slightly: the Max+ 388 is listed under "Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))", while the Max PRO 385 is listed under "Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5)". The release dates differ by a year: the Max PRO 385 has a release date of 2025-01-05, and the Max+ 388 has a release date of 2026-01-05. Part numbers differ as well: 100-000001980 for the Max+ 388 and 100-000001422 for the Max PRO 385.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Neither has recorded transistor counts or v-cache data. The absence of a die-size record for the Max PRO 385 means the 2x 70.6 mm² figure for the Max+ 388 cannot be directly compared.

The core architecture being identical explains why the two chips share clocks, cache, memory support, and socket. The benchmark divergence must therefore come from factors not visible in the core specification sheet, such as firmware, power management behavior, or the integrated GPU configuration. The Radeon 8060S in the Max+ 388 versus the Radeon 8050S in the Max PRO 385 is the most visible hardware difference, though the CPU benchmark results do not directly test graphics performance.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear workload-dependent choice. For users whose primary metric is Cinebench-style rendering, the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the stronger part. Its 28424 Cinebench R23 multicore score versus 18759 for the Max+ 388 is a 34% advantage. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 4012 versus 1960 is a 51.1% advantage. The Max PRO 385 also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 26.2% and find prime numbers by 7.6%. If the database includes only Cinebench results, the Max PRO 385 is the obvious selection.

For broader Passmark coverage, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 leads in 10 of the 11 Passmark tests recorded in the head-to-head set. It wins data compression by 5.7%, data encryption by 5.9%, extended instructions by 4.1%, floating point math by 4.5%, integer math by 4.3%, multithread by 4.4%, physics by 7.7%, random string sorting by 5.9%, and single-thread by 4.8%. Its average benchmark score of 49796 is 14.9% higher than the Max PRO 385's 43326. It also ranks at the 90th percentile versus the 88th.

The nearest rival data further separates the two. The Max+ 388 sits within 0.1% of the Intel Core 9 273PE and within 1.2% of the AMD Ryzen 9 7900, a desktop-class part. The Max PRO 385 sits within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 and within 0.3% of the Intel Core Ultra 9 386H. The Max+ 388 competes in a higher performance band.

No pricing data exists in the database, so any cost-based judgment is outside the scope of this analysis. The production status for both is Active, and both share a 55 W TDP, so thermal envelopes do not differentiate them. The Max PRO 385 was released a year earlier, which may matter for platform availability, but the CPU specifications and benchmark data alone favor the Max+ 388 for overall throughput and the Max PRO 385 for Cinebench-specific workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in the following recorded fields:

• Integrated graphics: The Max+ 388 uses the Radeon 8060S; the Max PRO 385 uses the Radeon 8050S.
• Die size: The Max+ 388 is listed at 2x 70.6 mm²; the Max PRO 385 has no recorded die size.
• Generation label: The Max+ 388 is listed under "Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))"; the Max PRO 385 is listed under "Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5)".
• Release date: The Max+ 388 has a release date of 2026-01-05; the Max PRO 385 has a release date of 2025-01-05.
• Part number: The Max+ 388 is 100-000001980; the Max PRO 385 is 100-000001422.

All other core specifications match: 8 cores, 16 threads, 3.60 GHz base clock, 5.00 GHz boost clock, 55 W TDP, AMD Socket FP11, Zen 5 architecture, Strix Halo codename, 4 nm process, TSMC foundry, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, 32 MB shared L3, LPDDR5X memory support, quad-channel memory bus, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, Gen 4 PCIe with 16 lanes (CPU only), mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multiplier. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49796, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 43326.

Q: How large is the Cinebench R23 multicore gap between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 scores 28424 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 34% higher than the 18759 scored by the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread Passmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 scores 4185 in Passmark single-thread, 4.8% higher than the 3995 scored by the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Q: Do the two processors share the same cache configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has a release date of 2025-01-05, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a release date of 2026-01-05.

Q: Which processor sits higher in the percentile ranking against all CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is at the 90th percentile, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is at the 88th percentile.

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins 11 of the 15 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins 4.