AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 Comparison

# AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 are both 12-core, 24-thread mobile processors built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename. They share the same 4 nm TSMC process node, the same 55 W TDP, and the same AMD Socket FP11 platform. The recorded benchmark data shows the Max+ 392 winning 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, while the Max PRO 390 takes 3 wins. The average benchmark score for the Max+ 392 is 90541, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, while the Max PRO 390 averages 63765 and sits in the 93rd percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 dominates in compute-heavy workloads that stress the CPU across all cores. Its wins span data compression, encryption, extended instruction sets, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded performance, physics simulation, and random string sorting. The largest margins appear in extended instructions at 11.7%, data compression at 9.6%, and random string sorting at 7.7%. These are workloads that benefit from sustained throughput, and the data indicates the Max+ 392 consistently delivers higher scores in these areas.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 claims the single-threaded tests, winning passmark single thread and the duplicate singlethread test by 1% each. It also takes the find prime numbers test with a 0.9% edge. These results show the PRO 390 has a slight advantage in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks, but the margins are narrow. The PRO 390 also carries the Radeon 8050S integrated graphics, while the Max+ 392 uses the Radeon 8060S, though the benchmark data does not include graphics-specific tests.

For users prioritizing multi-core throughput, the Max+ 392 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For workloads that are primarily single-threaded, the PRO 390 holds a marginal edge, but the differences are small enough that real-world perception would likely be minimal.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 5 on a 4 nm TSMC process, 12 cores, 24 threads, and identical cache configurations. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core, the L2 cache is 1 MB per core, and the L3 cache is 64 MB shared. Both support LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory and use PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The Max+ 392 reports a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the PRO 390 does not report a die size in the database. The Max+ 392 is listed under the generation "Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 (Strix Halo))" with a release date of January 5, 2026, and part number 100-000001979. The PRO 390 is listed under "Ryzen AI Max PRO (Zen 5)" with a release date of January 5, 2025, and part number 100-000001421.

The key architectural difference beyond the naming is the integrated graphics. The Max+ 392 uses the Radeon 8060S, while the PRO 390 uses the Radeon 8050S. Both are mobile processors with active production status and locked multipliers. The base clock is 3.20 GHz for both, and the boost clock is 5.00 GHz for both. The PRO 390 lacks the die size information that the Max+ 392 provides, but all other core specifications match exactly.

The PRO 390 also has additional Cinebench benchmark results in the database, including Cinebench R15 multicore at 3918, R15 singlecore at 303, R23 multicore at 24828, and R23 singlecore at 1976. The Max+ 392 does not have Cinebench results recorded, so direct comparison on those workloads is not possible from the available data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 comes in extended instructions, where it scores 45666 against the PRO 390's 40888, a delta of 11.7%. This test measures performance on specialized instruction sets, and the margin indicates a meaningful advantage in that workload class.

Data compression shows the Max+ 392 at 554760 versus 506170 for the PRO 390, a 9.6% lead. Random string sorting follows with 59487 against 55248, a 7.7% advantage. Encryption performance favors the Max+ 392 at 27784 versus 26027, a 6.8% gap. Multithreaded performance shows 45231 against 42912, a 5.4% edge for the Max+ 392.

Floating point math delivers 99548 for the Max+ 392 versus 94666 for the PRO 390, a 5.2% advantage. Physics simulation scores 2887 against 2773, a 4.1% lead. Integer math shows the smallest multi-core margin at 152414 versus 148508, a 2.6% advantage for the Max+ 392.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins the remaining tests. Find prime numbers shows 323 against 320 for the Max+ 392, a 0.9% lead. Single-thread performance shows 3967 against 3927, a 1% advantage for the PRO 390. The duplicate singlethread test confirms the same result with identical scores.

The overall win count stands at 8 for the Max+ 392 and 3 for the PRO 390. The average benchmark score for the Max+ 392 is 90541, which is 42% above the PRO 390's average of 63765, though the PRO 390's average includes the additional Cinebench results that the Max+ 392 does not have.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 3967 in the passmark single-thread test, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 3927. The PRO 390 holds a 1% advantage in this metric.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multithreaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 scores 45231 in passmark multithread, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 scores 42912. The Max+ 392 leads by 5.4% in this test.

Q: Are the core counts and clock speeds identical?

A: Yes, both processors have 12 cores, 24 threads, a base clock of 3.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. They also share the same 55 W TDP and 4 nm TSMC process node.

Q: What is the difference in cache configuration?

A: There is no difference. Both have 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: Both support LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The memory configurations are identical.

Q: How do the integrated graphics differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses the Radeon 8060S, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the Radeon 8050S. The database does not include graphics benchmark results for either processor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear split. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins 8 of 11 head-to-head tests, with its largest advantages in extended instructions (11.7%), data compression (9.6%), and random string sorting (7.7%). Its average benchmark score of 90541 places it in the 96th percentile, and it sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 654 and 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX in average score. The Max+ 392 is the stronger choice for multi-core throughput, floating point math, and encryption-heavy workloads.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins the single-thread tests by 1% and the find prime numbers test by 0.9%. Its average benchmark score of 63765 places it in the 93rd percentile, with the closest rival being the Intel Core i9-13900KS at 0.4% higher and the AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G at 0.7% lower. The PRO 390 also carries the Radeon 8050S graphics, which differs from the Max+ 392's Radeon 8060S, but no graphics benchmarks are available in the database.

The recorded data indicates that the Max+ 392 delivers superior performance in the majority of tested workloads, with the PRO 390 holding a narrow but consistent edge in single-threaded tasks. Users with workloads that scale across cores should favor the Max+ 392. Users whose primary tasks are single-thread-bound may see a slight benefit from the PRO 390, though the 1% margin is within typical run-to-run variance. The PRO 390 also offers additional Cinebench data points in the database, which may be useful for comparison in rendering workloads, but no direct Cinebench comparison is possible given the Max+ 392 lacks those results.