AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two Strix Halo parts clearly along core-count lines. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins 10 of the 11 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and its victories are often substantial, ranging from 5.3% to 24% depending on the workload. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 takes only a single win, in prime number finding, where it leads by 5.6%. For anyone prioritizing raw throughput in multi-threaded, encryption, compression, or floating-point tasks, the 395 is the obvious choice from the measured results. The 392, with its 12 cores versus 16, still posts a strong average benchmark score of 90,541 and sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 395 trails slightly in average score at 77,740 but holds the 95th percentile. That average score gap is misleading: the 395's benchmark suite includes heavier Cinebench and Geekbench tests that drag down its simple average, while the head-to-head PassMark tests show the 395 consistently ahead. The 392 is the pick for workloads that are sensitive to single-thread efficiency or where the slight prime-number advantage matters, but the 395 dominates almost everywhere else.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design: Zen 5 architecture on the Strix Halo codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. Both use a dual-chiplet layout with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The cache hierarchy is identical: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Both support LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. The integrated graphics are the same Radeon 8060S. The socket is AMD Socket FP11 for both, and both are mobile-market parts with active production status. The core difference is the silicon configuration: the 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 392's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a 5.00 GHz boost, while the 395 runs a lower 3.00 GHz base but a higher 5.10 GHz boost. Both are locked multipliers, so no overclocking. The 395 released earlier, on 2025-01-05, while the 392 followed a year later on 2026-01-05. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. The 395's part number is 100-000001099, and the 392's is 100-000001979.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Do they use the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both list the Radeon 8060S as their integrated graphics solution, with the same memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus.

Q: Is there any difference in cache capacity?

A: No, both have 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which one wins in single-threaded PassMark tests?

A: The 395 scores 4147 in PassMark single-thread, which is 5.3% higher than the 392's 3927. The 395 also has a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

Q: What is the release date for each?

A: The 395 was released on 2025-01-05, and the 392 was released on 2026-01-05.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, both have multiplierUnlocked set to false, so neither supports overclocking.

Specification Differences

The only fields where the two differ are core count, thread count, base clock, boost clock, release date, and part number. Everything else in the database is identical: same 55 TDP, same socket, same architecture, same process node, same foundry, same die size, same cache hierarchy, same memory support and bandwidth, same ECC support, same PCIe configuration (Gen 4, 16 lanes CPU only), same integrated graphics, same market segment, and same production status. The 392 has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, but the 395 has a higher boost clock at 5.10 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. The 395 has 4 more cores and 8 more threads. The 395's release date is earlier, and its part number is 100-000001099, while the 392 uses 100-000001979.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 395's largest win comes in PassMark integer math, where it scores 200,665 against the 392's 152,414, a 24% advantage. Floating-point math follows closely: 128,682 versus 99,548, a 22.6% lead. Random string sorting shows a 21.9% gap (76,177 versus 59,487), and data encryption gives the 395 a 21.6% edge (35,455 versus 27,784). Data compression is 19.7% better on the 395 (690,650 versus 554,760). Extended instructions favor the 395 by 19% (56,346 versus 45,666). The multi-thread PassMark score is 17.7% higher on the 395 (54,934 versus 45,231), and physics shows a 17.1% gap (3,481 versus 2,887). Even the single-thread tests, where the 392's higher base clock might help, go to the 395: 4,147 versus 3,927, a 5.3% difference. The sole 392 win is in find prime numbers, where it scores 320 against the 395's 303, a 5.6% margin. Beyond PassMark, the 395's database also includes Cinebench R15 multicore at 5,463 and single-core at 316, Cinebench R23 multicore at 35,314 and single-core at 2,044, Geekbench multicore at 20,992 and single-core at 2,464. The 392's benchmark list does not include those tests, so no direct comparison is possible from the recorded data.

Where Each One Wins

The 395 is the clear winner for multi-threaded productivity. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a 17.7% higher PassMark multi-thread score, and the gap grows to 24% in integer math and 22.6% in floating-point math. Data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption, which are common in file archiving and disk encryption workloads, run 19.7% and 21.6% faster respectively on the 395. Random string sorting, a proxy for sorting algorithms and database operations, is 21.9% faster. For extended instruction workloads, such as AVX-512 or similar vectorized code, the 395 leads by 19%. The 395 also edges out the 392 in single-threaded PassMark by 5.3%, meaning its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz more than compensates for the lower 3.00 GHz base clock in lightly threaded tasks. The 392's only recorded victory is in prime number finding, where it beats the 395 by 5.6%. That workload appears to favor the 392's higher base clock or some scheduling characteristic, but it is a narrow win in a single test. For physics simulations, the 395 leads by 17.1%. In the broader database context, the 392's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 654 (0.2% behind), the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (0.7% behind), and the Intel Xeon w7-2575X (2.7% ahead), placing it in strong company. The 395's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX (1.6% ahead), the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (1.6% ahead), the Intel Core i9-14900K (1.7% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (2% ahead). The 395's average benchmark score of 77,740 is dragged down by the inclusion of Cinebench and Geekbench results, but its percentile rank of 95 versus the 392's 96 shows both are near the top of the database. The practical split: choose the 392 if the specific prime-number or single-thread characteristics of its higher base clock are critical, or if the 12-core configuration is sufficient and the slight single-thread deficit is acceptable. Choose the 395 for almost everything else, especially if the workload scales with core count, since the 395 delivers double-digit percentage gains across most measured categories.