Ryzen AI Max 385 vs EPYC 9254
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 9254 outperforms Ryzen AI Max 385 by a whopping 254% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 69 | 718 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.22 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 19.45 | 20.00 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Genoa (2022−2023) | Strix Halo (2025) |
| Release date | 10 November 2022 (2 years ago) | 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,299 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.15 GHz | 5 GHz |
| Multiplier | 29 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm, 6 nm | 4 nm |
| Die size | 4x 72 mm2 | 2x 70.6 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 26,280 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | SP5 | FP11 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5-4800 | LPDDR5X |
| Maximum memory size | 6 TiB | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon 8050S |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 9254 and Ryzen AI Max 385.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 40.66 | 11.50 |
| Recency | 10 November 2022 | 6 January 2025 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 8 |
| Threads | 48 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 55 Watt |
EPYC 9254 has a 253.6% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.
Ryzen AI Max 385, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 25% more advanced lithography process, and 263.6% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 9254 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 9254 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen AI Max 385 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
