Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Xeon W-3275

CPU

GPU

Ryzen AI Max 390

12 Cores24 Thrd55 WWMax: 5 GHz2025

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Xeon W-3275

28 Cores56 Thrd205 WWMax: 4.6 GHz2019

Similar parts

·······

Buy on Amazon

Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Xeon W-3275 Performance Spectrum

Ryzen AI Max 390

12 / 24

41,834

+1.4%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX

Ryzen Threadripper 9960X

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX

Xeon W-3275

28 / 56

41,267

0.0%

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Xeon W-3275 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Xeon W-3275: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Ryzen AI Max 390

2025

Why buy it

✅+1.4% higher PassMark.
✅+66.2% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 205W, a 150W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP11 with DDR5 support instead of LGA3647 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 8050S, while Xeon W-3275 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon W-3275 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon W-3275, which brings 28 cores / 56 threads and 64 PCIe lanes.

Xeon W-3275

2019

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 28 cores / 56 threads, plus 64 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅128.6% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (41,267 vs 41,834).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (39 MB vs 64 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $4,449 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max 390 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌272.7% higher power demand at 205W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on LGA3647 with DDR4, while Ryzen AI Max 390 moves to FP11 and DDR5.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen AI Max 390 better than Xeon W-3275?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon W-3275 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen AI Max 390 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen AI Max 390 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.4% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.2% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB).

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Ryzen AI Max 390 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon W-3275 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Ryzen AI Max 390 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $4,449 MSRP, and it still gives you 1.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon W-3275 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 5.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon W-3275 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (9.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Ryzen AI Max 390 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2019), a healthier platform with FP11 and DDR5 instead of LGA3647, 66.2% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 39 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 28/56. That gives you a healthier platform runway for motherboard, RAM, and later CPU upgrades.

Ryzen AI Max 390 vs Xeon W-3275 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Ryzen AI Max 390

The Ryzen AI Max 390 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 6 January 2025 (less than a year ago). It is based on the Strix Halo (2025) architecture. It features 12 cores and 24 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: FP11. Thermal design power (TDP): 55 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 41,834 points. Launch price was $499.

Xeon W-3275

The Xeon W-3275 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 June 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 28 cores and 56 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.6 GHz. L3 cache: 38.5 MB. L2 cache: 28 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 205 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2933. Passmark benchmark score: 41,267 points. Launch price was $4,449.

⚡

Processing Power

The Ryzen AI Max 390 packs 12 cores / 24 threads, while the Xeon W-3275 offers 28 cores / 56 threads — the Xeon W-3275 has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max 390 versus 4.6 GHz on the Xeon W-3275 — a 8.3% clock advantage for the Ryzen AI Max 390 (base: 3.2 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The Ryzen AI Max 390 uses the Strix Halo (2025) architecture (4 nm), while the Xeon W-3275 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen AI Max 390 scores 41,834 against the Xeon W-3275's 41,267 — a 1.4% lead for the Ryzen AI Max 390. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max 390 vs 38.5 MB on the Xeon W-3275.

Feature	Ryzen AI Max 390	Xeon W-3275
Cores / Threads	12 / 24	28 / 56+133%
Boost Clock	5 GHz+9%	4.6 GHz
Base Clock	3.2 GHz+28%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	64 MB (total)+66%	38.5 MB
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	28 MB+2700%
Process	4 nm-71%	14 nm
Architecture	Strix Halo (2025)	Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
PassMark	41,834+1%	41,267

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen AI Max 390 uses the FP11 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon W-3275 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 8000 on the Ryzen AI Max 390 versus 3200 on the Xeon W-3275 — the Ryzen AI Max 390 supports 150% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon W-3275 supports up to 1024 of RAM compared to 128 — 700% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 4 (Ryzen AI Max 390) vs 6 (Xeon W-3275). PCIe lanes: 28 (Ryzen AI Max 390) vs 64 (Xeon W-3275) — the Xeon W-3275 offers 36 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: Strix Halo (Ryzen AI Max 390) and C621 (Xeon W-3275).

Feature	Ryzen AI Max 390	Xeon W-3275
Socket	FP11	LGA3647
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+33%	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	8000+150%	3200
Max RAM Capacity	128	1024+700%
RAM Channels	4	6+50%
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	28	64+129%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Ryzen AI Max 390 has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking — a significant advantage for enthusiasts seeking extra performance. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V (Ryzen AI Max 390) vs VT-x, VT-d (Xeon W-3275). The Ryzen AI Max 390 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 8050S), while the Xeon W-3275 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: Ryzen AI Max 390 rivals Apple M4 Max; Xeon W-3275 rivals Threadripper 3970X.

Feature	Ryzen AI Max 390	Xeon W-3275
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	AMD Radeon 8050S	None
Unlocked	Yes	No
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Ryzen AI Max 390 was priced at $0, while the Xeon W-3275 came in at $4449. On launch pricing ($0 vs $4449), Ryzen AI Max 390 was $4449 cheaper.

Feature	Ryzen AI Max 390	Xeon W-3275
MSRP	$0-100%	$4449
Performance per Dollar	—	9.3
Release Date	2025	2019

Search Ryzen AI Max 390 on Amazon

Search Xeon W-3275 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.