AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This 52-core difference is the primary driver of the Threadripper's dominant multi-threaded performance.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Threadripper leads in PassMark single-thread score with 4537 versus 3927 for the AI Max+ 392. That is a 13.4% advantage for the Threadripper, despite both having the same 3.20 GHz base clock.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each processor?

A: The AI Max+ 392 uses LPDDR5X memory with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper 9980X uses DDR5 memory with a quad-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 includes a Radeon 8060S integrated GPU. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: What are the production statuses and release dates?

A: Both processors are listed as Active in production. The AI Max+ 392 was released on 2026-01-05, while the Threadripper 9980X was released on 2025-07-29.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Threadripper 9980X has an average benchmark score of 321753, placing it in the 99th percentile of all CPUs. The AI Max+ 392 has an average score of 90541, placing it in the 96th percentile. The Threadripper's average score is roughly 3.6 times higher.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 4 nm process. However, the physical implementation differs substantially. The AI Max+ 392 uses a die configuration described as "2x 70.6 mm²", while the Threadripper 9980X uses "8x 70.6 mm²". The Threadripper also lists 66,520 million transistors, a figure not provided for the AI Max+ 392.

Cache organization is another key differentiator. The AI Max+ 392 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper 9980X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3 cache. The Threadripper's L3 cache is four times larger, which helps in workloads with large working sets.

The processors target different sockets and platforms. The AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11 and is classified as a Mobile segment part. The Threadripper 9980X uses AMD Socket sTR5 and is classified as Desktop. PCIe support also differs: the AI Max+ 392 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper provides Gen 5 with 80 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Threadripper far more capable for expansion and multi-GPU configurations.

Memory support reflects their different positioning. The AI Max+ 392 supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper supports DDR5 with a quad-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. The multiplier is locked on the AI Max+ 392, while the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The AI Max+ 392 includes a Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, while the Threadripper has no integrated graphics.

The Threadripper belongs to the 9000 series with the codename Shimada Peak. The AI Max+ 392 has the codename Strix Halo. Both carry the same base clock of 3.20 GHz, but the Threadripper boosts to 5.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz for the AI Max+ 392. TDP figures are 350 W for the Threadripper and 55 W for the AI Max+ 392.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is overwhelmingly faster in every recorded benchmark. It wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons. The smallest margin is in single-thread performance, where it leads by 13.4%. The largest margins exceed 80% in several multi-threaded workloads.

The Threadripper 9980X is the choice for workloads that scale with core count and memory capacity. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB L3 cache deliver massive throughput in data compression, encryption, math operations, and physics simulations. The average benchmark score of 321753 places it in the 99th percentile, and its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX (0.3% ahead), Intel Xeon 6781P (2% behind), AMD EPYC 9575F (3.2% behind), and AMD EPYC 9734 (3.6% behind).

The AI Max+ 392, with its 55 W TDP, mobile socket, and integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, serves a different purpose. Its 96th percentile ranking and average score of 90541 put it in the same class as the Intel Xeon 654 (0.2% behind), AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (0.7% behind), Intel Xeon w7-2575X (2.7% ahead), and Intel Xeon 6736P (3% ahead). It is a capable mobile processor, but it cannot compete with the Threadripper in raw compute.

The verdict is that the Threadripper 9980X is for high-throughput desktop compute. The AI Max+ 392 is for mobile or power-constrained systems where integrated graphics are required. No benchmark in the database suggests the AI Max+ 392 can match the Threadripper in any compute task.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |

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

| Cores | 12 | 64 |

| Threads | 24 | 128 |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP11 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Strix Halo | Shimada Peak |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| Transistors | Not provided | 66,520 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 256 MB |

| Memory Support | LPDDR5X | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 256.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 8060S | N/A |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Release Date | 2026-01-05 | 2025-07-29 |

| Launch MSRP | Not provided | $4999 |

Both processors share the same 3.20 GHz base clock, 1 MB L2 cache per core, quad-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, 4 nm process node, TSMC foundry, and Zen 5 architecture. The AI Max+ 392 has a 12-core/24-thread configuration, while the Threadripper has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper 9980X wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The widest margins appear in math-heavy and data-processing workloads.

In passmark_integer_math, the Threadripper scores 872071 versus 152414 for the AI Max+ 392, a delta of 82.5%. This is the largest gap in the set. Floating point math shows a similar pattern: 559003 versus 99548, a delta of 82.2%. Data encryption follows at 157137 versus 27784, a delta of 82.3%. Extended instructions produce 228959 versus 45666, an 80.1% gap. Data compression yields 2974534 versus 554760, an 81.3% delta.

Random string sorting shows the Threadripper at 292083 versus 59487, a 79.6% difference. Multithread performance is 141641 versus 45231, a 68.1% gap. Physics scores are 8001 versus 2887, a 63.9% delta. Find prime numbers delivers 769 versus 320, a 58.4% gap.

The narrowest win is in single-thread performance. The Threadripper scores 4537 versus 3927 for the AI Max+ 392, a 13.4% advantage. This indicates the Threadripper's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz provides a meaningful edge even in lightly threaded tasks.

The average benchmark score gap is substantial. The Threadripper's average of 321753 is more than three times the AI Max+ 392's 90541. Both processors sit near the top of the database, with the Threadripper in the 99th percentile and the AI Max+ 392 in the 96th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 9980X wins in every category measured. Its dominance is most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads that leverage its 64 cores and 128 threads. Integer math, floating point math, data compression, encryption, and extended instruction workloads all show deltas above 80%. The 256 MB L3 cache and 5.40 GHz boost clock also give it a 13.4% lead in single-thread performance.

The Threadripper is the clear choice for compute-heavy desktop applications. Its 80 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support extensive expansion, and its unlocked multiplier allows tuning. The launch MSRP of $4999 places it in the high-end workstation segment. Its nearest rivals are other high-core-count processors like the Threadripper PRO 9985WX, Xeon 6781P, and EPYC 9575F.

The AI Max+ 392 has no benchmark wins. However, the data shows its strengths in specific contexts. Its 55 W TDP is far lower than the Threadripper's 350 W, making it suitable for mobile systems. The integrated Radeon 8060S GPU eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card. Its LPDDR5X memory support with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the Threadripper's 204.8 GB/s, which may benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks within its core count limits.

The AI Max+ 392's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 654, AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX, Intel Xeon w7-2575X, and Intel Xeon 6736P. These are substantially lower-performing than the Threadripper's rivals, confirming the two processors occupy different performance tiers.

For users who need maximum multi-threaded throughput, the Threadripper 9980X is the only option between the two. For users who need a mobile processor with integrated graphics and low power draw, the AI Max+ 392 provides a competitive position within its own tier. The database records no scenario where the AI Max+ 392 outperforms the Threadripper in raw compute.