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.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

Ryzen 7 8700F

2024

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.1% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Spire), unlike Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $270 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Ryzen 7 8700F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8700F across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,500 vs 18,040).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 8700F.

Ryzen 7 8700F

2024

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +8.1% higher average FPS across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Wraith Spire), unlike Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Why buy it

✅+100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Ryzen 7 8700F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (16 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $270 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen 7 8700F across 44 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (16,500 vs 18,040).
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Ryzen 7 8700F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen 7 8700F better than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385?

Yes. Ryzen 7 8700F is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 8.1% average FPS lead across 44 shared CPU game tests in our data and 9.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen 7 8700F is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 8.1% more average FPS across 44 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen 7 8700F is the better fit. You are getting 9.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads.

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

Ryzen 7 8700F is the smarter buy today. Ryzen 7 8700F is at an unclear MSRP at $270 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it gives you a 8.1% average FPS lead across 44 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (115.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

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

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2024) and 100% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 16 MB). That makes it the safer long-term pick.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Ryzen 7 8700F Benchmark Check

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	266 FPS	277 FPS
medium	240 FPS	243 FPS
high	206 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	176 FPS	179 FPS
1440p
low	233 FPS	233 FPS
medium	190 FPS	185 FPS
high	158 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	138 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	158 FPS	162 FPS
medium	131 FPS	129 FPS
high	102 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	88 FPS	86 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 8700F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	483 FPS	684 FPS
medium	403 FPS	565 FPS
high	347 FPS	460 FPS
ultra	308 FPS	417 FPS
1440p
low	423 FPS	591 FPS
medium	374 FPS	514 FPS
high	322 FPS	422 FPS
ultra	273 FPS	360 FPS
4K
low	283 FPS	352 FPS
medium	259 FPS	311 FPS
high	244 FPS	286 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	251 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 8700F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	781 FPS	788 FPS
medium	781 FPS	788 FPS
high	767 FPS	706 FPS
ultra	649 FPS	594 FPS
1440p
low	766 FPS	788 FPS
medium	629 FPS	644 FPS
high	544 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	463 FPS	472 FPS
4K
low	530 FPS	562 FPS
medium	457 FPS	459 FPS
high	402 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	338 FPS	338 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 8700F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	781 FPS	788 FPS
medium	781 FPS	788 FPS
high	781 FPS	788 FPS
ultra	781 FPS	781 FPS
1440p
low	781 FPS	788 FPS
medium	781 FPS	768 FPS
high	692 FPS	673 FPS
ultra	602 FPS	590 FPS
4K
low	615 FPS	609 FPS
medium	553 FPS	541 FPS
high	495 FPS	486 FPS
ultra	431 FPS	426 FPS

Open Ryzen 7 8700F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Ryzen 7 8700F and Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Ryzen 7 8700F

The Ryzen 7 8700F is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 1 April 2024 (1 year ago). It is based on the Phoenix (2023−2024) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 4.1 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 16 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 4 nm process technology. Socket: AM5. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 31,240 points. Launch price was $270.

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 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 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 5 GHz. L3 cache: 32 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: 31,508 points. Launch price was $499.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Ryzen 7 8700F and Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 share an identical 8-core/16-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 5 GHz on the Ryzen 7 8700F versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 — identical boost frequencies (base: 4.1 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Ryzen 7 8700F uses the Phoenix (2023−2024) architecture (4 nm), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses Strix Halo (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Ryzen 7 8700F scores 31,240 against the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385's 31,508 — a 0.9% lead for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 18,040 vs 16,500 (8.9% advantage for the Ryzen 7 8700F). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 2,649 vs 2,886, a 8.6% lead for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 13,500 vs 14,136 (4.6% advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). L3 cache: 16 MB (total) on the Ryzen 7 8700F vs 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Feature	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Cores / Threads	8 / 16	8 / 16
Boost Clock	5 GHz	5 GHz
Base Clock	4.1 GHz+14%	3.6 GHz
L3 Cache	16 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB (per core)	1 MB (per core)
Process	4 nm	4 nm
Architecture	Phoenix (2023−2024)	Strix Halo (2025)
PassMark	31,240	31,508
Cinebench R23 Multi	18,040+9%	16,500
Geekbench 6 Single	2,649	2,886+9%
Geekbench 6 Multi	13,500	14,136+5%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Ryzen 7 8700F uses the AM5 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses FP11 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-5200 memory speed. The Ryzen 7 8700F supports up to 256 GB of RAM compared to 128 GB — 66.7% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Ryzen 7 8700F) vs 8 (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: XB650,B650,A620 (Ryzen 7 8700F) and Strix Halo platform (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385).

Feature	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Socket	AM5	FP11
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-5200	LPDDR5x-8000
Max RAM Capacity	256 GB+100%	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Both processors feature an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Both support AVX-512 instructions, benefiting scientific computing, AI inference, and encryption workloads. Both support AMD-V virtualization. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 8050S), while the Ryzen 7 8700F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Ryzen 7 8700F targets High-performance Gaming w/ dGPU, Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 targets Enterprise AI Mobile. Direct competitor: Ryzen 7 8700F rivals Core i7-14700F; Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 rivals M3 Max.

Feature	Ryzen 7 8700F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Radeon 8050S
Unlocked	Yes	Yes
AVX-512	Yes	Yes
Virtualization	AMD-V	AMD-V
Target Use	High-performance Gaming w/ dGPU	Enterprise AI Mobile