OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£2,290PassMark benchmark result:51699N. of physical cores:16CPU boost clock speed:5.1 GHzCPU socket:FP11TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

8.9

Overall score

Score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

90%

8.9

Technical score

10%

?

User score

★Better than 99% of processors
8.9

Technical score

Technical score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

9.6

Integrated Graphics

★Better than 99% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £2,290

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 Plus Pro 395

Technical score
Technical score
8.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 99% of models
Score components:

60%

9.3

Performance

18%

8.6

Cache & Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

9.0

Platform

1%

9.6

Integrated Graphics

8.9
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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 55% of models
Score components:

60%

8.9

Overall score

40%

1.0

Price

6.5
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
laptop
CPU socket
FP11
CPU socket
FP11
â–² Better than 54% of models
This processor uses the FP11 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 54% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
Chipset
B660, X670E
Chipset
B660, X670E
â–² Better than 89% of models
This processor supports B660, X670E chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 89.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
16
N. of physical cores
16
★ Better than 91% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 16 CPU cores, which is more than 91.5% of processors and equal to 4% of processors.
CPU threads
32
CPU threads
32
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 32 CPU threads, which is more than 95% of processors and equal to 3% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
5.1 GHz
â–² Better than 86% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 5.1 GHz which is higher than that of 86.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
16x 3.0 GHz
CPU base clock speed
16x 3.0 GHz
★ Better than 95% of models
This processor has a base clock of 16x3.0 GHz which is higher than that of 94.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Semiconductor size
4 nm
â–² Better than 88% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 88.5% of processors and equal to that of 7.4% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
â–² Better than 87% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 87% of processors and equal to that of 7.5% of processors.
L3 cache
64 MB
L3 cache
64 MB
★ Better than 95% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 64 MB which is larger than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L2 cache
16 MB
L2 cache
16 MB
★ Better than 90% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 89.8% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L1 cache
1,280 KB
L1 cache
1,280 KB
★ Better than 92% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 1,280 KB which is larger than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
DDR memory version
LPDDR5X
★ Better than 90% of models
This processor supports DDR LPDDR5X, which is newer than that of 89.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
8,000 MHz
Maximum memory speed
8,000 MHz
★ Better than 97% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 8,000 MHz, which is higher than that of 97.1% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8000 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR5X-8000 MHz
★ Better than 97% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR5X-8000 MHz, which is higher than that of 97.2% of processors and equal to 1.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
â–² Better than 62% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 61.9% of processors and equal to 21.4% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 8060S
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 8060S
★ Better than 99% of models
This processor uses the Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 98.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
40
Integrated GPU execution units
40
â–² Better than 81% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 40 GPU execution units, which is more than 80.9% of processors and equal to 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,295 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,295 MHz
★ Better than 96% of models
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 0.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode)
★ Better than 97% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), AV1 (HW decode/encode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 97.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 55 W which is higher than that of 63.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
55 W
Base power (PL1)
55 W
â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 55 W which is higher than that of 64% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 4.3x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    20,758
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,758 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,758 vs 4,829
  • 4.89x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    51,699
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (51,699 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    51,699 vs 10,572.5
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 4.81x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    13,429
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (13,429 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    13,429 vs 2,791
  • 2.02x higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,978
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,978 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,978 vs 1,471
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Strix Halo
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake
  • 63.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,081
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,081 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,081 vs 2,500
  • 24 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    32
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, GMET, Pluton
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, GMET, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, Shadow Stack, GMET, Pluton vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 years newer release date
    Release date
    2025
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 4.3x higher multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    20,758
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (20,758 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    20,758 vs 4,829
  • 4.89x higher PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    51,699
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (51,699 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    51,699 vs 10,572.5
  • 10 more CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    16
    ★ Better than 91% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (16 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    16 vs 6
  • 4.81x better multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    13,429
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a higher multi-core performance than the average processor (13,429 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    13,429 vs 2,791
  • 2.02x higher single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    2,978
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,978 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,978 vs 1,471
  • 63.2% better single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    4,081
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (4,081 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    4,081 vs 2,500
  • 24 more CPU threads
    CPU threads
    32
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (32 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    32 vs 8
  • 18.6% higher boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    5.1 GHz
    â–² Better than 86% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    5.1 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    16 x 3.0 GHz
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (16x3 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    16x3.0 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Strix Halo
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake
  • 6.4x larger L2 cache
    L2 cache
    16 MB
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    16 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 8x larger L3 cache
    L3 cache
    64 MB
    ★ Better than 95% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (64 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    64 MB vs 8 MB
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    4 nm
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 2.33x more L3 per core
    L3 per core
    4 MB/core
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 3.33x larger L1 cache
    L1 cache
    1,280 KB
    ★ Better than 92% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (1280 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    1,280 KB vs 384 KB
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 4 nm
    â–² Better than 87% of models
    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
  • 2x more L2 per core
    L2 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–² Better than 63% of models
    Market range: <0.25 MB/core – >2 MB/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
  • 2.73x higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    8,000 MHz
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (8000 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    8,000 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 5.59x higher memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    256 GB/s
    ★ Better than 98% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (256 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    256 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    LPDDR5X
    ★ Better than 90% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (LPDDR5X vs DDR4).
    LPDDR5X vs DDR4
  • Newer PCIe version
    PCIe version
    4.0
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4.0 vs 3.0
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    LPDDR5X-8000 MHz
    ★ Better than 97% of models
    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
    Maximum memory capacity
    128 GB
    â–² Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon 8060S
    ★ Better than 99% of models
    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
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,295 MHz
    ★ Better than 96% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    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
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 2.54x larger die size
    Die size
    449 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (449 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    449 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 9.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,290 vs £250).
    £2,290 vs £250
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    4
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 22.2% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 9.16x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 is more expensive than the average processor (£2,290 vs £250).
    £2,290 vs £250
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2.54x larger die size
    Die size
    449 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (449 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    449 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 2 fewer memory channels
    Memory channels
    4
    ★ Better than 93% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (4 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    4 vs 2
  • 22.2% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    55 W
    â–¼ Worse than 64% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

N
notebookcheck.net
02/09/2025
Summary of the review
One of the best mini PCs of 2025 - AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and Radeon 8060S reviewed with top performance in the GMKtec EVO-X2
P
phoronix.com
07/08/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 vs. Ryzen 9 9955X vs. Ryzen 9 9955X3D Linux Benchmarks
G
geekom.co.uk
14/02/2026
Summary of the review
AI Meets Ultra Performance: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Would you like a summary of the gaming performance specifically, or are you more interested in t...
P
phoronix.com
12/08/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 With Framework Desktop vs. Intel Core Ultra 9 285K
A
amd.com
03/06/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395: A Leap Forward in Generative AI Performance
A
amd.com
15/08/2025
Summary of the review
Unlocking Peak AI Performance with MLPerf Client on Ryzen AI
F
forbes.com
04/06/2025
Summary of the review
HP ZBook Ultra And AMD Ryzen AI Max: A Mobile Workstation Turning Point
P
phoronix.com
12/05/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 Linux Benchmarks
A
amd.com
03/06/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395: A Leap Forward in Generative AI Performance
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
01/01/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Review: Strengths, Weaknesses, and TDP Scaling of the Giant APU
(Translated)Show original
A
amd.com
03/06/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395: A Leap Forward in Generative AI Performance
(Translated)Show original
A
amd.com
03/06/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395: A Major Breakthrough in Generative AI Performance
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Top Laptop CPU Ranking - LaptopMedia
(Translated)Show original
P
phoronix.com
12/05/2025
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 Linux Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395

  • Unprecedented integrated graphics (Radeon 8060S) performance that rivals discrete GPUs like the RTX 4060 Ti.
  • Massive unified memory support up to 128GB LPDDR5X, providing immense VRAM for AI and content creation.
  • Exceptional power efficiency, delivering high-end CPU performance at a fraction of the wattage of desktop chips.
  • Strong local AI capabilities with a 50 TOPS NPU, significantly accelerating tasks like Stable Diffusion.
  • Ideal for small form factor (SFF) builds and mini PCs, eliminating the need for bulky dedicated graphics cards.
  • Excellent Linux support and compatibility with popular open-source machine learning frameworks.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395

  • High initial cost for fully equipped systems, sometimes reaching several thousand dollars.
  • Integrated graphics still fall behind dedicated high-end GPUs for 1440p or 4K high-refresh gaming.
  • Performance is limited by a locked multiplier, preventing traditional overclocking for enthusiasts.
  • Cooling can be an issue in small chassis, leading to frequent fan noise and potential thermal throttling.
  • Setup and driver configuration for local LLMs may require significant manual tweaking (e.g., ROCm installation).
  • Dependency on system RAM means memory speeds (8000 MT/s) are critical and can be a bottleneck compared to dedicated VRAM.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is a flagship 'Strix Halo' workstation SoC built on TSMC's 4nm process, combining 16 Zen 5 cores (32 threads) with a 5.1 GHz boost clock and a substantial 80MB total cache. It features an industry-leading Radeon 8060S iGPU with 40 RDNA 3.5 compute units—offering performance comparable to mid-range discrete graphics—and an XDNA 2 NPU providing 50 TOPS for a total system AI throughput of 126 TOPS. A primary strength is its unified memory architecture, supporting up to 128GB of high-speed LPDDR5x-8000 RAM with 256-bit bandwidth, which allows the GPU to allocate up to 96GB for massive generative AI models like DeepSeek 70B. However, its high configurable TDP of up to 120W can lead to significant thermal challenges and efficiency drops in compact chassis, and unlike many Pro-series chips, it lacks support for certain enthusiast features like memory overclocking (EXPO) or Precision Boost Overdrive.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI Max Plus Pro 395 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 Plus Pro 395 and other processors

No results found