AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a clear picture: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins 9 of the 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 taking only 2. The margin of victory for the Max+ 392 is substantial across nearly every multi-threaded workload.

In data compression, the Max+ 392 scores 554,760 against 379,448 for the Max PRO 385, a 46.2% advantage. Data encryption shows a similar pattern: 27,784 versus 18,978, a 46.4% delta. Extended instruction throughput favors the Max+ 392 by 45.2%, with scores of 45,666 and 31,442 respectively.

The largest single delta appears in the prime number search test, where the Max+ 392 nearly doubles the Max PRO 385: 320 versus 157, a 103.8% margin. This suggests the extra cores and threads deliver outsized gains in workloads with heavy integer iteration. Floating point math also leans heavily toward the Max+ 392, at 99,548 versus 69,580, a 43.1% difference. Integer math follows suit: 152,414 versus 105,056, a 45.1% gap.

Multithreaded performance, as measured by the PassMark multithread score, shows 45,231 for the Max+ 392 and 32,075 for the Max PRO 385, a 41% advantage. The physics test, which often reflects simulation and constraint-solving workloads, shows the Max+ 392 at 2,887 against 1,711, a 68.7% delta. Random string sorting, a memory and cache sensitive test, records 59,487 versus 40,784, a 45.9% edge.

The only area where the Max PRO 385 leads is single-threaded performance. The single-thread score of 3,995 for the Max PRO 385 edges out the 3,927 of the Max+ 392, a 1.7% difference. This is a narrow margin, but it indicates that the Max PRO 385's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz translates into a small but measurable single-core advantage. The same result appears in the duplicate single-thread test, confirming the consistency of the measurement.

The average benchmark score reinforces the overall hierarchy: the Max+ 392 averages 90,541 across its benchmark set, while the Max PRO 385 averages 43,326. This places the Max+ 392 in the 96th percentile of all CPUs in the database, compared to the 88th percentile for the Max PRO 385.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 5 architecture, Strix Halo codename, and 4 nm process node from TSMC. They also use the same AMD Socket FP11, have a 55 W TDP, and support LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, and both use PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The core configuration differs significantly. The Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads. This 50% core and thread advantage for the Max+ 392 explains most of the multi-threaded benchmark deltas. The L3 cache also differs: 64 MB shared on the Max+ 392 versus 32 MB shared on the Max PRO 385. L1 cache is identical at 80 KB per core, and L2 cache is also the same at 1 MB per core.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Max+ 392 carries the Radeon 8060S, while the Max PRO 385 has the Radeon 8050S. The die size is recorded only for the Max+ 392 at 2x 70.6 mm²; no die size is listed for the Max PRO 385. The part numbers differ, and the release dates are distinct: the Max PRO 385 was released earlier, while the Max+ 392 came later. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The base clock is higher on the Max PRO 385 (3.60 GHz) than on the Max+ 392 (3.20 GHz), but the boost clock is identical at 5.00 GHz. This explains the single-thread result, while the core count and cache size explain the multi-thread results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The Max+ 392 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Max PRO 385 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Max PRO 385 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the 3.20 GHz base clock of the Max+ 392.

Q: How do the single-thread scores compare?

A: The Max PRO 385 scores 3,995 in single-thread PassMark, which is 1.7% higher than the 3,927 score of the Max+ 392.

Q: What is the multithread score difference?

A: The Max+ 392 scores 45,231 in multithread PassMark, which is 41% higher than the 32,075 score of the Max PRO 385.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 | AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | Radeon 8050S |

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

| Release Date | Later | Earlier |

| Part Number | 100-000001979 | 100-000001422 |

| Generation | Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo)) | Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5) |

All other recorded specifications are identical: Zen 5 architecture, Strix Halo codename, 4 nm process node, TSMC foundry, AMD Socket FP11, 55 W TDP, LPDDR5X memory support, quad-channel memory bus, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), 80 KB L1 cache per core, 1 MB L2 cache per core, 5.00 GHz boost clock, mobile market segment, active production status, and locked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the stronger processor for multi-threaded workloads. Its 41% lead in multithread PassMark, combined with 46.2% in data compression, 46.4% in encryption, and 68.7% in physics, shows a consistent pattern of dominance across parallel tasks. The 103.8% delta in prime number search is particularly striking, suggesting the extra cores and larger L3 cache provide a near-linear scaling benefit in integer-heavy loops.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 holds a narrow single-thread advantage of 1.7%, which may matter for lightly threaded applications where the higher base clock can be utilized. However, the overall average benchmark score of 90,541 for the Max+ 392 versus 43,326 for the Max PRO 385, along with the 96th versus 88th percentile ranking, makes the Max+ 392 the clear choice for users who prioritize raw throughput.

The release date difference also suggests that the Max+ 392 is the newer design, though both processors remain in active production. The identical TDP of 55 W means the Max+ 392 delivers its higher performance within the same power envelope, which is notable for mobile platforms.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins in every multi-threaded category recorded: data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, prime number search, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, and random string sorting. These workloads benefit from the 12 cores, 24 threads, and 64 MB of L3 cache. For tasks like video rendering, code compilation, scientific simulation, or any parallel processing, the data strongly favors the Max+ 392.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 wins only in single-threaded performance, with a 1.7% edge in the single-thread PassMark test. This advantage comes from the higher 3.60 GHz base clock. Applications that depend on single-core speed, such as certain legacy software, some database operations, or lightly threaded interactive workloads, may see a marginal benefit from the Max PRO 385. The gap is small, and the boost clock is identical at 5.00 GHz, so the difference is limited to base-clock-sensitive scenarios.

For general-purpose use, the Max+ 392 delivers higher average performance across the recorded benchmark suite. The Max PRO 385 offers a slight single-thread edge but loses decisively in all multi-threaded tests. The choice depends on whether the workload is primarily single-threaded or multi-threaded, with the data showing the Max+ 392 as the more capable processor in the majority of measured scenarios.