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

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX target fundamentally different workloads, and the benchmark data reflects that clearly. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins 12 of 15 head-to-head tests, while the AI Max+ PRO 395 takes only 3. The Threadripper’s dominance is especially pronounced in single-core and physics-based workloads, where its higher base and boost clocks translate into massive score gaps. However, the AI Max+ PRO 395 is not without merit: it wins in floating-point math and integer math, and it offers an integrated GPU, making it the better choice for compact, power-conscious systems that still need strong computational throughput. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the workstation-class part for sustained multi-threaded rendering and high-frequency single-thread tasks, while the AI Max+ PRO 395 serves as a mobile-oriented processor with a surprising amount of compute headroom for its power envelope.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 5 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC’s 4 nm process node. The similarities end there. The AI Max+ PRO 395 uses the Strix Halo codename and fits into the AMD Socket FP11, a mobile-oriented platform. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses the Shimada Peak codename and requires the AMD Socket sTR5, a workstation/server platform. The Threadripper is built from two chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm², with a total transistor count of 16,630 million. The AI Max+ PRO 395 does not have listed transistor or die size data.

Core configurations differ: the AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Threadripper operates at a much higher base clock of 4.70 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, and its boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. This clock advantage drives its single-core performance edge.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AI Max+ PRO 395 provides 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, also with 64 MB of L3. The per-core L1 reduction on the Threadripper is offset by its higher clocks.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The AI Max+ PRO 395 uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses DDR5 with an eight-channel bus and 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is critical for workstation reliability.

PCIe connectivity is starkly different: the AI Max+ PRO 395 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). This makes the Threadripper vastly more expandable for multi-GPU and storage setups.

The AI Max+ PRO 395 includes the Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX has no integrated graphics. The Threadripper is multiplier-unlocked, whereas the AI Max+ PRO 395 is locked. The Threadripper is classified as Server/Workstation, while the AI Max+ PRO 395 is Mobile. Release dates also differ: the AI Max+ PRO 395 launched on 2025-01-05, and the Threadripper PRO 9945WX on 2025-06-30.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6822 versus 2012.5, a 70.5% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 687 versus 306, a 55.5% margin.

Q: Does the AI Max+ PRO 395 outperform the Threadripper in any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins in three tests: passmark floating point math (120533 versus 111566, 8% higher), passmark integer math (190720 versus 185421, 2.9% higher), and Cinebench R15 multi-core (5247 versus 4871, 7.7% higher).

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded rendering?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX is better in the most current rendering test. It scores 48325 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 35061 for the AI Max+ PRO 395, a 27.4% lead. The AI Max+ PRO 395 only wins the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX offers 409.6 GB/s across an eight-channel DDR5 bus, while the AI Max+ PRO 395 offers 256.0 GB/s across a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus. The Threadripper’s bandwidth is 60% higher.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX runs at 4.70 GHz base, while the AI Max+ PRO 395 runs at 3.00 GHz base. The Threadripper’s boost clock is also higher at 5.40 GHz versus 5.10 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AI Max+ PRO 395 and the Threadripper PRO 9945WX list ECC memory support as true.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clock: 3.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. Boost clock: 5.10 GHz versus 5.40 GHz. TDP: 55 watts versus 350 watts. Socket: AMD Socket FP11 versus AMD Socket sTR5. Codename: Strix Halo versus Shimada Peak. Process node is identical at 4 nm from TSMC.

Cache: L1 per core is 80 KB on the AI Max+ PRO 395 versus 64 KB on the Threadripper. L2 per core is identical at 1 MB. L3 is 64 MB on both. Memory support: LPDDR5X versus DDR5. Memory bus: Quad-channel versus Eight-channel. Memory bandwidth: 256.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 8060S versus N/A. Market segment: Mobile versus Server/Workstation. Multiplier unlocked: false versus true. Part numbers: 100-000001243 versus 100-000000726. Release dates: 2025-01-05 versus 2025-06-30. The Threadripper also lists transistor count (16,630 million) and die size (2x 70.6 mm²), which the AI Max+ PRO 395 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Threadripper PRO 9945WX is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6822 against 2012.5, a 70.5% lead. This is not a marginal difference; it is a fundamental clock-speed advantage that shows up across all single-thread tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Threadripper scores 687 versus 306, a 55.5% margin. In passmark single-thread, it scores 4573 versus 4078, a 10.8% edge. These results indicate that for lightly threaded workloads such as legacy applications or certain simulation tasks, the Threadripper is the clear choice.

The Threadripper also dominates in physics and multi-threaded workloads. In passmark physics, it scores 6118 versus 3189, a 47.9% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 48325 versus 35061, a 27.4% lead. Passmark multithread shows 56854 versus 51502, a 9.4% margin. Passmark random string sorting: 84498 versus 70150, a 17% lead. Passmark find prime numbers: 335 versus 284, a 15.2% edge. Passmark data encryption: 36540 versus 32840, a 10.1% lead. Passmark data compression: 671963 versus 639356, a 4.9% margin. Passmark extended instructions: 54406 versus 52067, a 4.3% edge.

The AI Max+ PRO 395 takes three wins. Its largest is in passmark floating point math, scoring 120533 against 111566, an 8% advantage. It also wins passmark integer math with 190720 versus 185421, a 2.9% margin. Its third win is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 5247 versus 4871, a 7.7% lead. These wins suggest that the AI Max+ PRO 395 has a strong FPU and integer execution pipeline, and that its older Cinebench R15 multi-core result benefits from its higher core count in that specific test.

The overall score picture is nuanced. The AI Max+ PRO 395 has a higher average benchmark score of 80762 versus 76513 for the Threadripper, and both sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. The AI Max+ PRO 395’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 638 (avg 80723, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (avg 81103, -0.4% delta). The Threadripper’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P (avg 76492, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D (avg 75779, 1% delta). The delta values are small, indicating that both processors are tightly clustered with their closest competitors, but the AI Max+ PRO 395 has a slight edge in aggregate score. However, the Threadripper’s per-test wins are often much larger in magnitude, especially in single-core and physics tests.

For a buyer deciding between these two, the data points to clear use cases. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the superior part for high-frequency single-thread work, multi-threaded rendering in modern Cinebench versions, and any workload that benefits from massive memory bandwidth and PCIe Gen 5 expansion. The AI Max+ PRO 395 is the better choice for power-constrained mobile systems that still need strong floating-point and integer math performance, and it offers integrated graphics, which the Threadripper lacks. The Threadripper’s 350 W TDP versus the AI Max+ PRO 395’s 55 W TDP also signals the intended deployment: a desktop workstation with substantial cooling versus a laptop or compact system. In aggregate, the database records 3 wins for the AI Max+ PRO 395 and 12 wins for the Threadripper PRO 9945WX, making the latter the more consistent performer across the tested workloads.