SYSTEM ANALYZER

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Get a comprehensive performance analysis of your gaming rig with detailed benchmarks, bottleneck detection, and upgrade recommendations

Build Configuration

Select your components

PROCESSOR (CPU)

▼

GRAPHICS CARD (GPU)

▼

86 Score

Top 14% Ranking

86 / 100

HIGH-END

Power Build

Top 14% of systems. Excellent for 1440p Ultra or 4K High gaming.

1440p Ultra4K High

System Balance Analysis

CPU vs GPU performance ratio

Well Balanced

CPU

95%

GPU

76%

PROCESSOR

AMD Ryzen AI Max 390

56,273 Benchmark Score

Top 5% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

GRAPHICS CARD

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

1,285 Benchmark Score

Top 24% Market Ranking

View Full Specs →

Market Position

How your build compares to others

Budget

0-30

Mid-Range

30-60

High-End

60-85

Enthusiast

85-100

Your Build

Game Performance Benchmarks

Real-world 4K FPS in popular titles

View All Games →

Performance Insights

Tips to maximize your system

Strong Performance

Excellent for 1440p gaming. Most games will run at high/ultra settings smoothly.

Compatible Games See what you can play Compare CPUs Find upgrades Compare GPUs Find upgrades

Performance Tiers Explained

90-100

Ultimate

4K Ultra gaming, VR ready, ray tracing enabled, professional workloads

4K 60+ FPS VR Ready

70-89

High-End

1440p Ultra or 4K High settings, excellent for modern AAA titles

1440p Ultra 4K High

50-69

Mid-Range

1080p Ultra or 1440p Medium, great value for most gamers

1080p Ultra 1440p Med

30-49

Entry Level

1080p Medium settings, suitable for eSports and older titles

1080p Med eSports

0-29

Legacy

Basic gaming, older titles, consider upgrading for modern games

720p-1080p Low Older Games

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile pairing presents a striking study in imbalance. The CPU is a modern, high-core-count powerhouse built on the latest Zen 5 architecture, while the GPU is a legacy professional part from a previous generation, now relegated to the lower end of the performance hierarchy. Benchmark data confirms this is a system where the processor is the dominant force, capable of handling demanding computational tasks with ease, yet shackled by a graphics solution that will struggle with contemporary gaming and graphically intensive workloads.

CPU Analysis

The AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 is a 12-core, 24-thread processor based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo. It operates with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and can boost up to 5.00 GHz. This is a mobile part with a 55W TDP, built on TSMC's 4 nm process node, which contributes to its efficiency. The chip features a substantial cache hierarchy, including 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, alongside a shared 64 MB L3 cache, ensuring high-speed data access for multi-threaded workloads.

The benchmark scores paint a picture of a very capable processor. In Cinebench R23, it scores 36,064 points in multi-core and 5,091 in single-core. The multi-core figure is particularly strong, indicating that the 12 cores are well-utilized and can handle heavy parallel processing. The single-core score of 5,091 demonstrates excellent per-thread performance, which is crucial for responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications. This is further corroborated by a Passmark single-thread score of 4,028 and a multi-thread score of 41,737.

Data from Passmark sub-tests reveals specific strengths. The data encryption score of 25,097 and data compression score of 487,145 are exceptionally high, suggesting robust performance in tasks involving data security, archiving, and file management. Floating-point math performance is also a highlight, with a score of 90,594, indicating strong capability for scientific simulations and engineering calculations. The integer math score of 146,519 further supports its prowess in general-purpose computing. The CPU holds a 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs, placing it firmly in the top tier of processors.

Relative to its nearest rivals, the Ryzen AI Max 390 shows a near-tie with several other high-end parts. It is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470, 0.5% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900HX. It also leads the Intel Core 7 253PQE by 0.6%. This indicates that while the absolute performance is excellent, it is not a class-leader by a wide margin, but rather sits in a highly competitive performance bracket.

Benchmark Performance

The core benchmark data for this combination shows a stark contrast between the CPU and GPU. The processor's average benchmark score is 56,273, while the GPU's average score, based on a single 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test, is a mere 1,285. This discrepancy is the central defining feature of this system. The CPU is performing at a level consistent with the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the GPU is at the 7th percentile of all GPUs, placing it in the bottom tier of graphics hardware.

This contrast is further highlighted when examining the nearest rivals for each component. The CPU trades blows with other high-end mobile and desktop parts, with deltas of -0.1%, 0.5%, -0.5%, and 0.6% against its closest competitors. In stark contrast, the GPU's closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 610 (0.3% faster), the AMD Radeon R9 380 (0.6% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 (1.4% faster), and the NVIDIA NVS 4200M (1.4% faster). These are all entry-level or legacy parts, confirming the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile's lowly position in the performance hierarchy.

The combined percentile for this pairing is 49, which is a direct mathematical consequence of the high-performing CPU being dragged down by the low-performing GPU. The data suggests a system that is massively over-provisioned on the processing side and severely under-provisioned on the graphics side. For any workload that is primarily GPU-bound, the system will perform at a level consistent with the 7th percentile GPU, negating the advantages of the top-tier CPU. For CPU-bound workloads, however, the system will feel exceptionally fast, in line with its 91st percentile ranking.

GPU Analysis

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a professional mobile graphics card based on the older Turing architecture (TU106 chip) and built on a 12 nm process. It features 1,920 shading units, 120 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output pipelines. The card has 30 RT cores and 240 Tensor cores, providing hardware support for ray tracing and AI-accelerated tasks. Its memory configuration consists of 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 336.0 GB/s.

Clock speeds are set at a base of 945 MHz and a boost of 1380 MHz. The card's compute capabilities are specified at 5.299 TFLOPS for FP32 and 10.60 TFLOPS for FP16. Its pixel rate is 88.32 GPixel/s and texture rate is 165.6 GTexel/s. While these specifications were respectable for a professional card in its time, they are now significantly outdated for modern workloads.

The single benchmark score of 1,285 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 is a clear indicator of its performance class. This score places it at the 7th percentile of all GPUs, and its nearest rivals are the GeForce GT 610 and GT 520, which are extremely low-end cards. This suggests that while the Quadro name implies professional-grade reliability and certification, the raw performance is comparable to entry-level consumer hardware from over a decade ago. The 6 GB VRAM is also a limitation for modern games and 3D rendering applications, which often require 8 GB or more for high-resolution textures and complex scenes. The data indicates that the GPU is the primary bottleneck for any graphics-intensive task.

Usage Scenarios

High-Refresh Gaming: This system is not suitable for high-refresh gaming. With the GPU sitting at the 7th percentile and scoring only 1,285 in 3DMark Steel Nomad, it will not be able to drive modern titles at high frame rates. The CPU’s strong single-core performance is irrelevant if the GPU cannot render frames quickly enough. Users should expect playable frame rates only at low settings and resolutions for demanding games.

Streaming: The system has a mixed profile for streaming. The CPU is exceptionally powerful with a multi-thread score of 41,737, which could handle software encoding for a stream without major performance hits. However, the GPU is too weak to handle both game rendering and the encoding overhead, making NVENC-based streaming a poor experience. The 240 Tensor cores are present but the overall GPU performance is too low to be of benefit here.

Video Editing: Video editing will be a frustrating experience. The CPU’s excellent multi-core performance (36,064 in Cinebench R23) will ensure smooth timeline scrubbing and fast export times for codecs that rely on the processor. However, the GPU is a major liability. Effects, transitions, and color grading that rely on GPU acceleration will be slow, and the 6 GB VRAM is insufficient for working with high-resolution footage and complex projects.

3D Rendering: This workload will be heavily bottlenecked by the GPU. While the CPU can handle scene setup and physics calculations, the final render is often GPU-accelerated. With an FP32 performance of only 5.299 TFLOPS and a 7th percentile ranking, render times will be extremely long compared to any modern GPU. The CPU’s performance will go largely underutilized in the final render stage.

Software Development: This is a strong scenario for this system. Compilation, which is a CPU-intensive task, will benefit greatly from the 12 cores and 24 threads. The high integer math score of 146,519 and data compression score of 487,145 are also indicative of strong performance in code compilation and package management. The GPU will be sufficient for basic UI rendering and 2D tasks but will not be a factor for most development workflows.

Student and Office Work: This system is overkill for standard student or office work. The CPU is far more powerful than needed for word processing, spreadsheets, and web browsing. While the performance will be flawless, it is a waste of potential. The GPU is sufficient for 2D applications and basic video playback, but the combination is an inefficient choice for these tasks.

Who Should Build It

This specific configuration appears to target a niche within the mobile workstation market. The target user is one who prioritizes raw CPU computational power above all else and requires a professional-grade GPU for certification and stability, not for raw 3D performance.

Engineers and Scientists: Users running complex simulations, finite element analysis, or data processing tasks that are heavily CPU-bound would benefit from the Ryzen AI Max 390’s top-tier multi-core performance.
Developers: Software engineers compiling large codebases, running virtual machines, or performing data analysis will see excellent performance from the CPU, with the Quadro GPU providing certified drivers for professional applications.
Data Analysts: For workloads involving large datasets, the high data encryption and compression scores indicate strong performance in database management and data processing tasks.
Not for Gamers or 3D Artists: The data clearly shows this is not a system for gamers or 3D artists. The GPU is far too weak for modern gaming or rendering, and its 7th percentile ranking makes it a severe bottleneck.

Upgrade Path and Platform

The platform is based on the AMD Socket FP11, which is specific to the Ryzen AI Max series. This means the CPU is likely soldered to the motherboard, offering no upgrade path for the processor itself. The system supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, providing a high memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This memory is also likely soldered, meaning the total capacity is fixed at the time of purchase.

The CPU provides 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, which is the primary interface for expansion. The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, however, uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. This is a potential bottleneck for the GPU, as it cannot take advantage of the newer, faster PCIe Gen 4 standard. The GPU is an MXM module, which in theory could be replaced, but the availability of compatible, modern MXM modules is extremely limited.

The system's TDP is dictated by the 55W CPU and the 80W GPU, totaling 135W for the core components. This is a moderate power envelope for a laptop, and the system does not have a suggested PSU, as it is a mobile platform. A sensible upgrade path is not available for this system. The only realistic upgrade would be to replace the entire laptop. The performance gap between the CPU and GPU is so large that any attempt to improve the system would require a complete platform change.

Balance and Bottleneck

The balance of this system is severely skewed. The CPU is a top-10% performer, while the GPU is in the bottom 7% of all graphics cards. This creates a situation where the GPU is the definitive bottleneck for any workload that utilizes it. The CPU is so powerful that it will rarely be the limiting factor, even in multi-threaded tasks.

For gaming, the GPU is the absolute limit. The CPU can easily feed frames to any modern GPU, but the Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile cannot render them fast enough. The benchmark scores show a system that will be CPU-bound in almost no real-world scenarios. The only time the CPU might become a factor is in extremely light tasks where the GPU is idle. In any graphically intensive application, the GPU's 1,285 score in 3DMark Steel Nomad will be the performance ceiling. The 0.5% performance delta to the Intel Core i9-14900HX is a non-factor when the GPU is over a hundred times less powerful than a modern high-end part.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 a fast processor?

A: Yes. It scores 36,064 in Cinebench R23 multi-core and holds a 91st percentile ranking among all CPUs, making it a top-tier performer.

Q: How does the CPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: It is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470, being 0.1% behind, and is 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900HX. It also leads the Intel Core 7 253PQE by 0.6%.

Q: What is the GPU's performance level?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a low-performance part. It scores only 1,285 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 and sits at the 7th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What type of memory does the system use?

A: The CPU supports LPDDR5X memory in a quad-channel configuration, providing a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s.

Q: Can the GPU be upgraded?

A: The GPU is an MXM module, which is technically replaceable. However, finding a modern, compatible MXM module is extremely difficult, so a practical upgrade is unlikely.

Q: Is this system good for gaming?

A: No. The GPU is the bottleneck, and its performance is comparable to entry-level cards like the GeForce GT 610 and GT 520. It will not provide a satisfactory gaming experience.

Q: What is the processor's socket and architecture?

A: The CPU uses the AMD Socket FP11 and is based on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo.

Gaming Performance

The FACT PACK contains no measured FPS data for this specific CPU and GPU combination. Therefore, the following frame rate expectations are estimates based on the benchmark scores and relative performance of the components.

The GPU's 3DMark Steel Nomad score of 1,285 places it in a performance tier with the GeForce GT 610 and GT 520. This is a clear indication that its gaming capabilities are extremely limited. It is based on the Turing architecture, which supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, but the raw processing power is simply insufficient for modern titles.

Based on the data, this system should be considered an e-sports machine at best. Players might achieve playable frame rates in very light, competitive titles like Counter-Strike: Global Offensive or League of Legends at 1080p with low settings. For any AAA or graphically demanding game released in the last several years, the system will likely struggle to maintain 30 FPS even at the lowest settings and resolutions. The 6 GB of VRAM is also a significant constraint, potentially causing texture pop-in or outright crashes in games that require more memory. The CPU's high performance will ensure that the system does not stutter due to processor limitations, but the GPU will cap the maximum frame rate at a low level. Users should not expect a playable experience with modern, graphically intensive games.

Rate My PC: AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 + NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Power Build

System Balance Analysis

AMD Ryzen AI Max 390

NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

Market Position

Game Performance Benchmarks

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Performance Insights

Strong Performance

Performance Tiers Explained

Ultimate

High-End

Mid-Range

Entry Level

Legacy

CPU Analysis

Benchmark Performance

GPU Analysis

Usage Scenarios

Who Should Build It

Upgrade Path and Platform

Balance and Bottleneck

FAQ

Gaming Performance

4K Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1440p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

1080p Gaming Performance

Cyberpunk 2077

Red Dead Redemption 2

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Control

Call of Duty: Warzone

Fortnite

Related Processors

Related Graphics Cards

Compare Your CPU

Compare Your GPU

Related PC Builds

Same CPU with Different GPUs

Same GPU with Different CPUs

Other Popular Builds