AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a decisive verdict: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 takes only 2. The PRO 390's advantage is not marginal; in several workloads, it leads by more than 25%.

The largest gap appears in PassMark's find prime numbers test. The PRO 390 scores 323 against the Max+ 388's 145, a delta of -55.1% from the Max+ 388's perspective. This indicates the PRO 390 is more than twice as effective at this integer-heavy, single-thread-adjacent workload. Similarly, in PassMark physics, the PRO 390 posts 2773 versus 1843, a 33.5% advantage. These two results suggest that the PRO 390's additional cores translate directly into substantial gains in compute-bound tasks.

Multi-threaded rendering benchmarks reinforce the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the PRO 390 scores 24828, while the Max+ 388 scores 18759, a 24.4% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a similar story: 3918 for the PRO 390 against 2872 for the Max+ 388, a 26.7% gap. The PRO 390 also leads in PassMark multi-thread with 42912 versus 33486, a 22% edge, and in integer math with 148508 versus 109588, a 26.2% margin.

The PRO 390's wins extend across memory and encryption workloads. PassMark data compression shows 506170 for the PRO 390 versus 400887 for the Max+ 388, a 20.8% advantage. Data encryption favors the PRO 390 at 26027 against 20092, a 22.8% lead. Extended instructions, floating point math, and random string sorting all fall to the PRO 390 with deltas of -20%, -23.2%, and -21.8% respectively.

The Max+ 388's only victories come in PassMark single-thread tests. It scores 4185 in both PassMark single thread and singlethread, against the PRO 390's 3967. That is a 5.5% advantage for the Max+ 388 in each. In Cinebench single-core tests, the Max+ 388 comes close but still loses: Cinebench R23 single-core shows 1960 versus 1976 (a 0.8% gap), and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 298 versus 303 (a 1.7% gap). The Max+ 388's single-thread lead is real but narrow, and it does not overcome the PRO 390's multi-core dominance.

Average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture. The PRO 390 has an average benchmark score of 63765, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Max+ 388 averages 49796, sitting in the 90th percentile. The PRO 390's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900KS with a delta of -0.4% and the AMD EPYC 7343 at -0.7%, while the Max+ 388's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 9 273PE at -0.1% and the Intel Core i5-14600KF at 0.8%. The data places the PRO 390 in a higher performance tier overall, even as the Max+ 388 remains competitive against mid-range desktop parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins 13 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins only 2.

Q: Is the Max+ 388 faster in any single-threaded workload?

A: Yes. In PassMark single-thread tests, the Max+ 388 scores 4185 against the PRO 390's 3967, a 5.5% advantage. However, in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests, the PRO 390 wins by small margins of 1.7% and 0.8% respectively.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The PRO 390 leads by 24.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (24828 versus 18759) and by 26.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (3918 versus 2872). PassMark multi-thread shows a 22% gap (42912 versus 33486).

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores and percentiles?

A: The PRO 390 has an average benchmark score of 63765 and sits in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Max+ 388 averages 49796 and sits in the 90th percentile.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: Both processors have the same boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The base clock differs: the Max+ 388 runs at 3.60 GHz, while the PRO 390 runs at 3.20 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory. They also share the same memory type (LPDDR5X), memory bus (Quad-channel), and memory bandwidth (256.0 GB/s).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for multi-threaded workloads: the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the superior processor. It wins every multi-core benchmark in the database, with margins ranging from 20% to over 55%. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 64 MB of shared L3 cache, deliver a level of parallel performance that the 8-core, 16-thread Max+ 388 cannot match. For rendering, data compression, encryption, physics simulation, and integer math, the PRO 390 is the clear choice.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 holds a narrow single-thread lead in PassMark tests, but that advantage does not translate into wins in Cinebench single-core tests, where the PRO 390 edges ahead. The Max+ 388's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz helps it in lightly threaded scenarios, but the effect is small (5.5% at most). In the broader context of the benchmark suite, the Max+ 388's single-thread edge is not enough to offset its multi-core deficit.

The PRO 390 also commands a higher position in the overall CPU hierarchy. Its 93rd percentile ranking and average score of 63765 place it alongside high-end desktop parts like the Intel Core i9-13900KS and the AMD EPYC 7343. The Max+ 388's 90th percentile and 49796 average align it with mid-range desktop CPUs like the Intel Core i5-14600KF and the AMD Ryzen 9 7900. For users who prioritize parallel throughput, the PRO 390 is the only rational choice from this comparison.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count, thread count, base clock, L3 cache, integrated graphics, release date, and part number. The Max+ 388 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the PRO 390 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Max+ 388 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the PRO 390 runs at 3.20 GHz. Both share a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

L3 cache differs substantially: the Max+ 388 has 32 MB shared, while the PRO 390 has 64 MB shared. L1 and L2 cache are identical at 80 KB per core and 1 MB per core respectively. The integrated graphics differ: the Max+ 388 uses the Radeon 8060S, while the PRO 390 uses the Radeon 8050S.

The release dates differ. The Max+ 388 has a release date of 2026-01-05, while the PRO 390 was released on 2025-01-05. The part numbers also differ: 100-000001980 for the Max+ 388 and 100-000001421 for the PRO 390.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, using a 4 nm process node from TSMC. Both use the AMD Socket FP11 and are mobile market segments. Both support LPDDR5X memory over a Quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The core and cache configuration is where the architectures diverge. The PRO 390 doubles the L3 cache from 32 MB to 64 MB shared, which helps explain its multi-core advantage beyond just the extra cores. The die size is listed as 2x 70.6 mm² for the Max+ 388, while the PRO 390 has no recorded die size. Both processors have the same L1 and L2 cache per core.

The integrated graphics differ, with the Radeon 8060S on the Max+ 388 and the Radeon 8050S on the PRO 390. Both processors are unlocked in the sense that the multiplier is not unlocked (multiplierUnlocked is false for both). The PRO 390 carries the "PRO" designation in its generation name, while the Max+ 388 does not, though both are active production parts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is the winner for any workload that scales with core count or cache size. The data shows it ahead in Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core, PassMark multi-thread, physics, integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, data compression, data encryption, and random string sorting. The 12-core, 24-thread configuration with 64 MB L3 cache gives it a commanding lead in parallel compute, with margins between 20% and 55% depending on the test. For rendering, scientific computing, server-style workloads, and heavy multitasking, the PRO 390 is the clear pick.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 wins in only two recorded tests: PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, both at 4185 versus 3967. That 5.5% edge suggests it is slightly better for lightly threaded applications where a single core's clock speed matters more than core count. Its higher base clock of 3.60 GHz likely contributes to this. However, the advantage is small and does not appear in Cinebench single-core tests, where the PRO 390 actually wins by 0.8% to 1.7%. The Max+ 388 is therefore only preferable in scenarios that rely almost exclusively on single-thread performance and where the PRO 390's extra cores are not utilized.

Given the PRO 390's overwhelming benchmark dominance, the choice is straightforward for most users. The Max+ 388's single-thread lead is too narrow to justify selecting it over the PRO 390, which offers dramatically higher multi-core performance and a higher overall percentile ranking. The only case for the Max+ 388 is a workload that is strictly single-threaded and where the 5.5% PassMark advantage matters more than the PRO 390's advantages everywhere else.