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

The Verdict

The benchmark data splits these two mobile processors into distinct roles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the outright performance leader, winning 10 of 11 head-to-head tests, with its largest margins coming in integer math, floating-point math, and data encryption. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins only one test, passmark_find_prime_numbers, but it does so with a 12.7% advantage. The PRO 395 also posts a higher single-thread score (4078 vs. 3927, a 3.7% lead) and a higher multithread score (51502 vs. 45231, a 12.2% lead). The 392 still holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 96 versus 95 for the PRO 395, but the average benchmark score for the 392 is 90541 compared to 80762 for the PRO 395. That discrepancy comes from the different benchmark suites recorded for each chip: the 392 has only PassMark results, while the PRO 395 also includes Cinebench R15 and R23 scores. For users who need maximum throughput across the broadest set of workloads, the PRO 395 is the clear choice. For users who prioritize the specific prime-number finding workload, or who prefer the higher percentile placement, the 392 has a narrow niche.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The PRO 395 boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the 392 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The 392 has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz compared to 3.00 GHz for the PRO 395.

Q: Which chip wins in single-thread performance?

A: The PRO 395 wins in passmark_single_thread with a score of 4078, which is 3.7% higher than the 392's score of 3927.

Q: Is the memory configuration identical?

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

Q: Do they share the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature the Radeon 8060S integrated GPU.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The 392 has a higher average benchmark score of 90541, while the PRO 395 averages 80762. This is influenced by the different benchmark sets recorded for each.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename and use a 4 nm process node from TSMC. The 392 is listed under the "Ryzen AI Max" generation, while the PRO 395 falls under the "Ryzen AI Max+ PRO" generation. The 392 has a die size of 2x 70.6 mm²; no die size is recorded for the PRO 395. Cache layouts are identical: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Both use the AMD Socket FP11 and have a TDP of 55 watts. The core count difference is the primary architectural split: 12 cores for the 392 versus 16 for the PRO 395. Both are listed as mobile market segment parts with active production status. The 392 was released on 2026-01-05, while the PRO 395 has a release date of 2025-01-05, making the PRO 395 the earlier release. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ: 12 cores and 24 threads for the 392, 16 cores and 32 threads for the PRO 395. Base clocks differ, with the 392 at 3.20 GHz and the PRO 395 at 3.00 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the 392 at 5.00 GHz and the PRO 395 at 5.10 GHz. The part numbers are different: 100-000001979 for the 392 and 100-000001243 for the PRO 395. The generation labels differ as noted above. The die size is recorded only for the 392. The release dates differ by one year. All other recorded specifications are identical: socket, architecture, process node, foundry, cache hierarchy, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and multiplier lock status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PRO 395 dominates the PassMark suite. In integer math, the PRO 395 scores 190720 against 152414 for the 392, a 20.1% advantage, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Floating-point math shows a 17.4% lead for the PRO 395 (120533 vs. 99548). Data encryption favors the PRO 395 by 15.4% (32840 vs. 27784). Random string sorting goes to the PRO 395 with 70150 versus 59487, a 15.2% gap. Data compression shows the PRO 395 at 639356 versus 554760, a 13.2% lead. Extended instructions favor the PRO 395 by 12.3% (52067 vs. 45666). Multithread performance gives the PRO 395 a 12.2% edge (51502 vs. 45231). Physics scores go to the PRO 395 with 3189 versus 2887, a 9.5% difference. Single-thread and singlethread scores both show the PRO 395 at 4078 versus 3927, a 3.7% lead.

The 392 takes one test: passmark_find_prime_numbers, scoring 320 against 284 for the PRO 395, a 12.7% win. This is the only head-to-head test where the 392 leads. The Cinebench results are recorded only for the PRO 395: 5247 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 306 in Cinebench R15 singlecore, 35061 in Cinebench R23 multicore, and 2012.5 in Cinebench R23 singlecore. No Cinebench scores appear in the database for the 392.

Where Each One Wins

The PRO 395 wins in every throughput-oriented category. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a 12.2% multithread advantage, and the integer math gap of 20.1% indicates strong general-purpose compute. The 15.4% encryption lead and 13.2% compression lead make it the better choice for data-heavy workloads, including file archiving and secure data handling. The 15.2% random string sorting advantage points to faster sorting and text processing. The 17.4% floating-point lead covers scientific and simulation tasks. The 12.3% extended instructions win suggests better performance for workloads using advanced instruction sets. The 9.5% physics advantage supports better simulation performance. The 3.7% single-thread lead, while modest, means the PRO 395 also holds an edge in lightly threaded applications. The Cinebench R23 multicore score of 35061 reinforces the PRO 395's position for rendering and 3D workloads, though no direct comparison is available for the 392 in that test.

The 392 wins only in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where its 12.7% lead suggests a specific algorithmic advantage in prime-number search tasks. This could be relevant for certain cryptographic or number-theoretic workloads, but it is the sole recorded win. The 392 also holds a higher percentile rank (96 vs. 95) and a higher average benchmark score (90541 vs. 80762), but those figures reflect the different benchmark suites in the database for each chip. The 392's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz may explain its prime-number win despite the PRO 395's higher boost clock. For users whose work centers on prime-number computation, the 392 is the pick. For all other measured workloads, the PRO 395 is the stronger processor.