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 PRO 385 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,530PassMark multi-core score:31861N. of physical cores:8CPU boost clock speed:5.0 GHzCPU socket:FP11TDP (Thermal design power):55 W

AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
7.6/10

Overall score

Score
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment 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
â–² Better than 82% of models
Score components

40%

8.0

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

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

â–²Better than 82% of processors
6.0

Value for money

Value for money
6.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

2.4

Price

â–¼Worse than 96%
8.0

Technical score

Technical score
8.0/ 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
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.5

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 86%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
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
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests 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 25% 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-pro-385
amd-ryzen-ai-max-pro-385
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,530
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 PRO 385

Technical score
Technical score
8.0/ 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
â–² Better than 86% of models
Score components:

60%

8.3

Performance

18%

7.5

Architecture

10%

7.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

8.5

Integrated graphics

8.0
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components:

70%

7.6

Overall score

30%

2.4

Price

6.0
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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
8
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 8 CPU cores, which is more than 61.2% of processors and equal to 13.9% of processors.
CPU threads
16
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 16 CPU threads, which is more than 69% of processors and equal to 14.6% 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
8x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 8x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 81.4% of processors and equal to that of 1.2% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
31,861
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 31,861 in PassMark, which is higher than 87.7% 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
32 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 32 MB which is larger than that of 89% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
L2 cache
8 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 8 MB which is larger than that of 72% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L1 cache
640 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 640 KB which is larger than that of 73.6% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% 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)
N/A
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 8050S
This processor uses the Radeon 8050S integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 98.2% of processors and equal to that in 0.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
32
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 32 GPU execution units, which is more than 70.1% of processors and equal to 10.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 57.8% of processors and equal to that of 38.4% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
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)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 45-120 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 2.71x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,136 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,136 vs 5,209
  • 2.78x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,861 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,861 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
  • 55.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,967 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,967 vs 2,558
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 62.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,489 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,489 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 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 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    January 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • 2.78x higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (31,861 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    31,861 vs 11,469
  • 2.71x higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (14,136 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    14,136 vs 5,209
  • 55.1% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,967 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,967 vs 2,558
  • 4 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    8 vs 4
  • 62.1% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,489 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,489 vs 1,535
  • 8 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (16 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    16 vs 8
  • 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 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    8x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 more CPU cores
    This processor has more CPU cores than the average processor (8 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    8 vs 6
  • 4 wider front-end design
    This processor has a higher front-end width than the average processor (8 vs 4). The average processor uses front-end width of 4.
    8 vs 4
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake).
    Strix Halo vs Kaby Lake
  • 2.16x more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (4 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    4 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
  • 3.56x larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (32 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    32 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 2.67x larger L2 cache
    This processor has a higher L2 cache than the average processor (8 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    8 MB vs 3 MB
  • 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
  • 66.7% larger L1 cache
    This processor has a higher L1 cache than the average processor (640 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    640 KB vs 384 KB
  • 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 (8,000 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 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 vs 3
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 8050S vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 8050S vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 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
  • 2.11x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (374 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    374 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 6.12x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,530 vs £250).
    £1,530 vs £250
  • 20.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.03 vs 7.3).
    6.03 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • 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
  • 6.12x more expensive
    AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is more expensive than the average processor (£1,530 vs £250).
    £1,530 vs £250
  • 20.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has worse value for money than the average processor (6.03 vs 7.3).
    6.03 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, Memory Guard, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, GMET vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 2.11x larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (374 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    374 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 6 fewer memory channels
    This processor has fewer memory channels than the average processor (8 vs 2). The average processor supports 2 memory channels.
    8 vs 2
  • 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

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

  • Exceptional integrated graphics performance with the Radeon 8050S, capable of running games at 1080p on Ultra settings
  • Massive unified memory support (up to 128GB LPDDR5x-8000) allows assigning up to 96GB to the iGPU, ideal for large AI models and deep learning
  • Dedicated XDNA 2 NPU delivers 50 TOPS of AI performance, meeting Copilot+ PC requirements while keeping the CPU free for other tasks
  • Balanced performance-to-cost ratio, offering a more affordable entry point into the high-end Strix Halo ecosystem compared to the flagship 395 SKU
  • Efficient thermal management in compact designs, with users reporting low noise and stable temperatures even under load
  • Professional-grade features including ECC memory support, hardware virtualization, and AMD PRO technologies

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

  • Significantly lower multi-core performance compared to higher SKUs like the Ryzen AI Max+ Pro 395 due to having only 8 Zen 5 cores
  • Lacks support for the newer VVC (H.266) video codec, unlike some competitors such as Intel's Lunar Lake chips
  • High power consumption at peak loads (configurable up to 120W), which can limit battery life in mobile workstations
  • Lower L3 cache (32MB) compared to the 64MB found on the higher-end 390 and 395 models
  • Overclocking potential is limited as the processor features a locked multiplier
  • Currently has limited availability in the market as manufacturers often prioritize higher-margin flagship SKUs first

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is a high-performance 'Strix Halo' processor built on the 4nm Zen 5 architecture, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads with a 3.6 GHz base clock and up to 5.0 GHz boost. Its standout feature is the powerful integrated Radeon 8050S graphics with 32 RDNA 3.5 compute units, supported by a 256-bit LPDDR5x-8000 memory interface that can address up to 128GB of unified memory. It excels in AI-driven workloads with a dedicated XDNA 2 NPU providing up to 50 TOPS (106 TOPS total), while also including AMD PRO technologies for enhanced security and manageability in professional environments. Main pros include its exceptional integrated graphics performance that competes with entry-level discrete GPUs and its massive unified memory bandwidth, making it ideal for compact workstations and local AI model execution. However, some cons include a high configurable TDP (up to 120W) that may challenge thermal management in smaller devices, and its 8-core configuration provides less multi-threaded headroom compared to higher-tier 12 or 16-core models in the same series.

Compare AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 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 PRO 385 and other processors

No results found