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

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 are near-identical twins on paper, both built on the Zen 5 (Strix Halo) architecture, but benchmark data reveals a consistent, if narrow, edge for the non-PRO variant. Across 17 head-to-head tests, the standard Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins 15, while the PRO model takes only 2. The average benchmark score difference is small — 75,265 for the non-PRO versus 73,567 for the PRO — yet the pattern of wins is remarkably uniform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking observation from the data is the consistency of the non-PRO model’s advantage. In every Cinebench test — R15, R20, and R23 — the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 outscores the PRO version by exactly 2.2% in multicore and single-core runs, with the sole exception of R23 single-core, where the margin is 2.3%. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the non-PRO scores 45,228 versus the PRO’s 44,213, a gap of 1,015 points. The single-core R23 result shows 6,385 versus 6,241, reinforcing that this is not a workload-specific quirk but a systemic difference.

The Passmark suite tells a similar story, though the deltas vary more. The largest single gap appears in the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test, where the non-PRO leads by 4.4% (298 versus 285). Physics follows closely at 4% (3,448 versus 3,311). Data encryption shows a 3% edge (34,086 versus 33,060), while floating-point math trails at 2.6% (123,833 versus 120,557). Even the smallest Passmark deltas — data compression at 2.4% (656,891 versus 641,407) and extended instructions at 1.4% (52,958 versus 52,214) — still favor the non-PRO chip.

The PRO model’s only wins come in the two identical single-thread Passmark entries (`passmark_single_thread` and `passmark_singlethread`), where it scores 4,132 versus 4,123. That 0.2% advantage is negligible in practical terms, but it does break the sweep. Interestingly, the Cinebench single-core tests contradict this, showing the non-PRO ahead by 2.2% to 2.3%. This divergence between Cinebench and Passmark single-thread results suggests the two suites measure different aspects of single-core performance — Cinebench may stress sustained boost behavior, while Passmark’s single-thread test might capture a different instruction mix.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 dominates in nearly every category that matters for productivity and content creation. Its 2.2% lead across all Cinebench versions — from R15 multicore (4,558 versus 4,456) to R20 multicore (18,995 versus 18,569) — indicates a consistent advantage in rendering and CPU-bound tasks. The Passmark multithread score (53,137 versus 52,005, a 2.1% lead) confirms this is not confined to Cinebench’s rendering engine.

For integer-heavy workloads, the non-PRO chip wins by 2% (195,223 versus 191,369), and random string sorting also shows a 2% edge (72,894 versus 71,439). Data compression, a proxy for file archiving and database operations, favors the non-PRO by 2.4%. Even encryption, which often benefits from dedicated instructions, is 3% better on the non-PRO (34,086 versus 33,060).

The PRO model’s two wins are narrow and isolated. Its 0.2% lead in Passmark single-thread (4,132 versus 4,123) is within measurement noise, and it does not carry over to Cinebench single-core. Therefore, for any workflow that leverages multiple cores — rendering, compiling, scientific computing — the standard Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the clear choice based on the data. The PRO variant offers no meaningful advantage except in that one specific Passmark metric, which is unlikely to translate into real-world gains.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design: 16 cores, 32 threads, a 3.00 GHz base clock, and a 5.10 GHz boost clock on the Zen 5 architecture. They are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process node, use the AMD Socket FP11, and both integrate a Radeon 8060S GPU. Cache configurations are identical — 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Memory support is also the same: LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus delivering 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support.

The only architectural difference listed in the specification data is the die size. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 lists a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the PRO model’s die size is not specified. This is a curious omission, but it may hint at differences in physical package or manufacturing configuration that are not otherwise exposed in the benchmark results. Since both share the same process node, core count, clock speeds, and cache hierarchy, the performance gap cannot be attributed to these listed specs. The part numbers differ — 100-000001099 for the non-PRO and 100-000001243 for the PRO — but no further details are provided to explain the benchmark deltas.

Both chips have a 55W TDP, use PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and were released on the same date. They are both classified as mobile processors with active production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. The fact that the non-PRO consistently outperforms the PRO despite identical core and cache specs suggests that firmware, power management, or binning differences — none of which are listed in the spec sheets — could be responsible.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 faster than the PRO version in all Cinebench tests?

A: Yes. The non-PRO model wins every Cinebench test: R15 multicore (4,558 vs 4,456), R15 single-core (643 vs 629), R20 multicore (18,995 vs 18,569), R20 single-core (2,681 vs 2,621), R23 multicore (45,228 vs 44,213), and R23 single-core (6,385 vs 6,241). The margins range from 2.2% to 2.3%.

Q: Does the PRO model win any benchmark?

A: The PRO wins two tests, both listed as Passmark single-thread metrics. It scores 4,132 versus 4,123 in both `passmark_single_thread` and `passmark_singlethread`, a 0.2% advantage. This is the only area where the PRO leads.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals in average score?

A: The non-PRO has an average benchmark score of 75,265, sitting 0.2% behind the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 (75,400) and 1.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX (74,103). The PRO averages 73,567, which is 0.7% behind the Intel Xeon 6517P (73,050) and 2.3% behind the non-PRO model.

Q: Do the two chips have identical specifications?

A: They share the same core count (16), threads (32), clocks (3.00 GHz base, 5.10 GHz boost), TDP (55W), socket (FP11), process node (4 nm), cache (80 KB L1/core, 1 MB L2/core, 64 MB L3), memory support (LPDDR5X, quad-channel, 256.0 GB/s), and integrated graphics (Radeon 8060S). The only listed difference is the die size: the non-PRO lists 2x 70.6 mm², while the PRO has no die size specified.

Q: Which chip has a higher percentile ranking?

A: Both are in the 96th percentile versus all CPUs, according to the data. Their average benchmark scores differ by only 2.3%, so they occupy the same performance tier.

Q: Is the performance difference consistent across all workload types?

A: Yes, with one exception. The non-PRO leads in all Cinebench tests (2.2-2.3%), all Passmark multithreaded tests (ranging from 1.4% in extended instructions to 4.4% in prime numbers), and memory/encryption tests (2-3%). The PRO only wins in Passmark single-thread by 0.2%, which is not corroborated by Cinebench single-core results.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy: the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the faster processor in almost every measurable way. Its 15 benchmark wins versus 2 for the PRO, combined with a 2.3% higher average score (75,265 versus 73,567), make it the superior choice for performance-oriented buyers. The consistency of the non-PRO’s lead — across rendering (Cinebench), math (Passmark), encryption, and compression — indicates that the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded tasks like video rendering, scientific simulations, or software compilation, the non-PRO’s edge in Cinebench R23 multicore (45,228 versus 44,213) and Passmark multithread (53,137 versus 52,005) is meaningful, even if the percentage gaps are small. The PRO’s sole win in Passmark single-thread (4,132 versus 4,123) is too minor to recommend it for single-core workloads, especially since Cinebench single-core shows the opposite result.

The PRO variant’s lack of a listed die size, alongside its consistent underperformance, suggests it may be a more conservatively binned or differently configured part, though the spec sheets do not explain why. For anyone comparing these two directly, the benchmark data is unambiguous: choose the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 unless there is a specific reason — not evidenced in the benchmarks — to prefer the PRO branding.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001243 | 100-000001099 |

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

| Benchmark Wins | 2 | 15 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 73,567 | 75,265 |

All other listed specifications — cores (16), threads (32), base clock (3.00 GHz), boost clock (5.10 GHz), TDP (55W), socket (FP11), architecture (Zen 5), process node (4 nm), cache (80 KB L1/core, 1 MB L2/core, 64 MB L3), memory support (LPDDR5X, quad-channel, 256.0 GB/s), ECC support, PCIe (Gen 4, 16 lanes), integrated graphics (Radeon 8060S), release date, and production status — are identical between the two processors. The only meaningful difference in the specification tables is the die size listing, which may correlate with the benchmark gap but is not directly explained by the data provided.