OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£2,110PassMark multi-core score:45960N. of physical cores:12CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FP11TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Review: Compare 168 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392
8.0/10

Overall score

Score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists, owners and ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 15%, Sentiment score 10%, User score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 92% of models
Score components

40%

8.5

Technical score

25%

7.5

Reviews score

15%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

User scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 8.4, the mark of a weaker model in this category

★Better than 92% of processors
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

â–¼Worse than 98%
8.5

Technical score

Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

9.3

Integrated graphics

★Better than 94%
7.5

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 52% of models

80%

7.6

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
â–¼Worse than 52%
?

User score

User score
8.4/ 10
✕
What it is
How happy buyers are with this model, based on ratings from across the web.
How we count it
Enough data: A model needs at least 1 rating from across the web. Without one, it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
Share: User score counts 10% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
No ratings from across the web yet, so it counts as 8.4, the mark of a weaker rated model in this category.
No ratings from across the web yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 15% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-ai-max-plus-392
amd-ryzen-ai-max-plus-392
Best prices
    N/A~ £2,110
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

Technical score
Technical score
8.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

8.8

Performance

18%

8.5

Architecture

10%

7.8

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

9.3

Integrated graphics

8.5
Reviews score
7.5
User score
?
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

70%

8.0

Overall score

30%

1.0

Price

5.9
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP11
This processor uses the FP11 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 52.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA
Show more
N. of physical cores
12
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 12 CPU cores, which is more than 79.9% of processors and equal to 5.7% of processors.
CPU threads
24
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 24 CPU threads, which is more than 89.7% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5 GHz which is higher than that of 78.5% of processors and equal to that of 5.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
12x 3.2 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 12x3.2 GHz which is higher than that of 90.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
45,960
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 45,960 in PassMark, which is higher than 94.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
64 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
12 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 12 MB which is larger than that of 83.1% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L1 cache
960 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 960 KB which is larger than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 88.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,000 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,000 MHz, which is higher than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8000 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8000 MHz, which is higher than that of 96.4% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 8060S
This processor uses the Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 98.5% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
40
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 40 GPU execution units, which is more than 80.3% of processors and equal to 1.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,295 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,295 MHz which is higher than that of 95.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 61.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
120 W
Market range: <25 W – >150 W
This processor has a boost power of 120 W which is higher than that of 76.1% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 3.57x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (18,571 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    18,571 vs 5,209
  • 4.01x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (45,960 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    45,960 vs 11,469
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake
  • 88.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,893 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,893 vs 1,535
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 58.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,048 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,048 vs 2,558
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 11.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.5/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 52% of models

    80%

    7.6

    Average grade

    20%

    7.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (3)
    3 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Ratings from across the web count in the User score, not in this score.
    7.5 vs 6.7
  • 6 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2026 vs 2020).
    2026 vs 2020
  • 4.01x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (45,960 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    45,960 vs 11,469
  • 3.57x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (18,571 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    18,571 vs 5,209
  • 88.5% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,893 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,893 vs 1,535
  • 8 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (12 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    12 vs 4
  • 58.2% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,048 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    4,048 vs 2,558
  • 16 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (24 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    24 vs 8
  • 6 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (12 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    12 vs 6
  • 13.6% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    5.0 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (12x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    12x3.2 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake
  • 7.11x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    64 MB vs 9 MB
  • 4x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (12 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    12 MB vs 3 MB
  • 2.86x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (5.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    5.3 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2.5x larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (960 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    960 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 5.46x higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (256 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    256 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2.5x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8000 MHz vs 3200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3200 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (LPDDR5X-8000 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    LPDDR5X-8000 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 8060S vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 8060S vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 3.7x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1295 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,295 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 87.5% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (120 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    120 W vs 64 W
  • 8.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,110 vs £250).
    £2,110 vs £250
  • 24.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.88 vs 7.3).
    5.88 vs 7.33
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 8.44x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,110 vs £250).
    £2,110 vs £250
  • 24.7% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has worse value for money than the average processor (5.88 vs 7.3).
    5.88 vs 7.33
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • More limited crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more limited crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES vs AES, SHA).
    AES vs AES, SHA
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • No speed boosting
    This processor does not support automatic speed boosting, while the average processor does. 87.7% of processors offer this.
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 87.5% higher boost power
    This processor has a higher boost power draw than the average processor (120 W vs 64 W). The average processor has a boost power draw of 64 W.
    120 W vs 64 W
  • 22.2% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (55 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    55 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
ThinkView
≈ estimated
25/05/2026
Hands-on review: gaming, editing and local AI tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a niche pick for AI users who also edit and game, not a fit for most buyers.
8.0
Machines & More
≈ estimated
26/03/2026
Hands-on review: benchmarks, gaming and battery tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a strong workstation chip with casual gaming ability, but it is niche, power-hungry and not ideal for dedicated gamers.
Not graded
Not graded
Brand video

What reviewers agree on

Based on 0 · 3

Reviewers mostly agree that gaming performance falls short of expectations.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

  • Twelve cores and 24 threads handle heavy multi-threaded work.
  • The 40 integrated execution units give the built-in graphics real muscle.
  • Four memory channels move 256 GB/s of data.
  • Memory runs at 8000 MHz with up to 128 GB supported.
  • A 64 MB L3 cache keeps more data close to the cores.
  • The 5.0 GHz boost clock keeps single tasks quick.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392

  • Boost power of 120 W draws heavy power.
  • Base power of 55 W is high for a quiet machine.
  • It lacks Turbo Boost, which many chips include.
  • Memory is LPDDR5X, so it cannot be upgraded later.
  • The multiplier is locked, so the chip cannot be overclocked.

Verdict

Heavy jobs get plenty of room on the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, which has 12 cores and 24 threads. Its graphics block is the real draw, with 40 integrated execution units and a 1295 MHz base clock. Memory is wide, with four channels, 256 GB/s of bandwidth and 8000 MHz speed. Its 128 GB maximum memory is a generous ceiling for heavy work. A 64 MB L3 cache keeps data close to the cores, and the 4 nm process helps the chip run efficiently. The trade-off is power, since boost power reaches 120 W and the chip has no Turbo Boost. It suits a buyer who needs strong graphics and heavy multi-core work and can live with the power draw. Anyone chasing low power should look at the smaller chips in this list.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 and other processors

No results found