AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX represent two radically different interpretations of the Zen 5 architecture. The data shows a 95th percentile ranking for both, but the path they take to that elite tier diverges sharply. The AI Max+ 395 is a mobile part, a 16-core processor with a 55W TDP, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX is a 350W workstation behemoth with 12 cores. The benchmark results reveal a fascinating split, where the smaller, lower-power chip wins on raw computational throughput in several tests, yet the larger chip dominates in single-threaded and physics-based workloads. This analysis dissects the head-to-head results and the architectural decisions that drive them.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has an average score of 76513. The nearestRivals data shows a deltaPct of 1.6, indicating the AI Max+ 395 is 1.6% ahead of the Threadripper PRO.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the AI Max+ 395 has 4 more cores and 8 more threads than the Threadripper PRO.

Q: What are the key differences in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX supports DDR5 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO has a significant advantage in raw memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is higher than the 5.10 GHz boost clock of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395. The Threadripper PRO also has a higher base clock of 4.70 GHz compared to 3.00 GHz.

Q: How does the integrated graphics situation differ between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 includes integrated graphics in the form of a Radeon 8060S. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has no integrated graphics (N/A). This makes the AI Max+ 395 a more self-contained solution.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmark results, how many wins does each processor have?

A: The data shows the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 5 wins, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 10 wins. However, the AI Max+ 395 wins in several high-impact, compute-intensive tests.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two distinct performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the victor in workloads that stress raw arithmetic throughput and data compression. Its most decisive victory comes in the `cinebench_cinebench_r15_multicore` test, where it scores 5463 against the Threadripper PRO's 4871, a 12.2% lead. This trend continues in the Passmark suite, where the AI Max+ 395 wins `passmark_floating_point_math` (128682 vs 111566, a 15.3% delta) and `passmark_integer_math` (200665 vs 185421, an 8.2% delta). It also edges out the Threadripper PRO in `passmark_data_compression` (690650 vs 671963, a 2.8% delta) and `passmark_extended_instructions` (56346 vs 54406, a 3.6% delta). This pattern suggests the AI Max+ 395, despite its lower TDP, is exceptionally efficient at executing parallel mathematical operations, likely due to its higher core count.

Conversely, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the clear winner in single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks. Its victory in `cinebench_cinebench_r23_singlecore` is overwhelming, with a score of 6822 compared to the AI Max+ 395's 2044, a massive 70% delta. This dominance is also reflected in `cinebench_cinebench_r15_singlecore`, where it scores 687 versus 316, a 54% delta. Beyond raw single-core speed, the Threadripper PRO excels in the `passmark_physics` test, scoring 6118 against 3481, a 43.1% lead. It also takes wins in `passmark_multithread` (56854 vs 54934, a 3.4% delta), `passmark_random_string_sorting` (84498 vs 76177, a 9.8% delta), and `passmark_find_prime_numbers` (335 vs 303, a 9.6% delta). The Threadripper PRO's wins are in areas that benefit from high clock speeds and lower latency per thread, rather than sheer core count.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen 5 architecture and use the same 4 nm process node from TSMC, with an identical die size of 2x 70.6 mm². However, they are distinct designs. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is codenamed "Strix Halo," while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX is codenamed "Shimada Peak." The AI Max+ 395 is a monolithic mobile chip placed in the "Ryzen AI Max" generation, whereas the Threadripper PRO is part of the "9000 series" and the "Ryzen Threadripper" generation, targeting server and workstation platforms.

The cache layouts differ significantly. The AI Max+ 395 has a larger L1 cache at 80 KB per core, while the Threadripper PRO has 64 KB per core. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is a point of differentiation: the AI Max+ 395 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper PRO's specification lists 64 MB of L3 cache, but does not specify it as "shared" in the same manner. The Threadripper PRO also lists its transistor count at 16,630 million, a figure not provided for the AI Max+ 395.

The memory and I/O architecture is where the two diverge most profoundly. The AI Max+ 395 is a mobile part with a quad-channel LPDDR5X interface and a 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, along with 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Threadripper PRO is a workstation part with an eight-channel DDR5 interface, a massive 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Threadripper PRO also features an unlocked multiplier, whereas the AI Max+ 395 is locked. The AI Max+ 395 integrates a Radeon 8060S GPU, while the Threadripper PRO has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is in power and platform. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a TDP of 55W and uses the AMD Socket FP11, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has a TDP of 350W and uses the AMD Socket sTR5. This 295W difference underscores the gulf in their intended use cases.

• Cores: 16 (AI Max+ 395) vs 12 (Threadripper PRO)
• Threads: 32 (AI Max+ 395) vs 24 (Threadripper PRO)
• Base Clock: 3.00 GHz (AI Max+ 395) vs 4.70 GHz (Threadripper PRO)
• Boost Clock: 5.10 GHz (AI Max+ 395) vs 5.40 GHz (Threadripper PRO)
• TDP: 55W (AI Max+ 395) vs 350W (Threadripper PRO)
• Socket: FP11 (AI Max+ 395) vs sTR5 (Threadripper PRO)
• Memory Support: LPDDR5X (AI Max+ 395) vs DDR5 (Threadripper PRO)
• Memory Bus: Quad-channel (AI Max+ 395) vs Eight-channel (Threadripper PRO)
• Memory Bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s (AI Max+ 395) vs 409.6 GB/s (Threadripper PRO)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 16 Lanes (AI Max+ 395) vs Gen 5, 128 Lanes (Threadripper PRO)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 8060S (AI Max+ 395) vs N/A (Threadripper PRO)
• Multiplier Unlocked: No (AI Max+ 395) vs Yes (Threadripper PRO)
• Market Segment: Mobile (AI Max+ 395) vs Server/Workstation (Threadripper PRO)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The `cinebench_cinebench_r23_multicore` test is a major win for the Threadripper PRO, with a score of 48325 against the AI Max+ 395's 35314, a 26.9% delta. This is a significant reversal of the R15 result, suggesting that the Threadripper PRO's higher memory bandwidth and clock speeds allow it to sustain heavy multi-threaded loads more effectively over longer durations. The Threadripper PRO also dominates in `cinebench_cinebench_r23_singlecore` with a 70% delta, a figure that highlights the clock speed advantage.

The AI Max+ 395's biggest wins are in the Passmark math tests. The 15.3% lead in `passmark_floating_point_math` is its largest delta, followed by a 12.2% lead in `cinebench_cinebench_r15_multicore`. These are substantial margins, showing that the AI Max+ 395's 16 cores can outperform the Threadripper PRO's 12 cores in pure arithmetic throughput, even with a lower TDP. In `passmark_integer_math`, the AI Max+ 395 is 8.2% ahead, and in `passmark_extended_instructions`, it is 3.6% ahead.

The remaining tests show a narrower field. The Threadripper PRO wins `passmark_multithread` by a 3.4% margin, `passmark_data_encryption` by a 3% margin, and `passmark_data_compression` is won by the AI Max+ 395 by a slim 2.8% margin. The `passmark_single_thread` test shows the Threadripper PRO ahead by 9.3%, and `passmark_random_string_sorting` shows it ahead by 9.8%. The `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test is a 9.6% win for the Threadripper PRO. The single-core results, especially the 54% delta in `cinebench_cinebench_r15_singlecore`, are stark and point to the Threadripper PRO's superior per-core performance, driven by its higher base and boost clocks.