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.

EPYC 7F52

2020

Why buy it

✅+300% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max 390 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (41,388 vs 41,834).
❌Launch MSRP is still $3,100 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max 390 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌336.4% higher power demand at 240W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen AI Max 390 moves to FP11 and DDR5.

Ryzen AI Max 390

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 240W, a 185W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP11 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 8050S, while EPYC 7F52 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F52, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

EPYC 7F52

2020

Ryzen AI Max 390

2025

Why buy it

✅+300% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 64 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 16 cores / 32 threads, plus 128 PCIe lanes vs 28.
✅357.1% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 28) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +27.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 55W instead of 240W, a 185W reduction.
✅Newer platform on FP11 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with AMD Radeon 8050S, while EPYC 7F52 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max 390 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (41,388 vs 41,834).
❌Launch MSRP is still $3,100 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max 390 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌336.4% higher power demand at 240W vs 55W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while Ryzen AI Max 390 moves to FP11 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (64 MB vs 256 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than EPYC 7F52, which brings 16 cores / 32 threads and 128 PCIe lanes.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen AI Max 390 better than EPYC 7F52?

Not in a simple one-size-fits-all way. EPYC 7F52 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Ryzen AI Max 390 is the better mainstream desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and day-to-day practicality.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen AI Max 390 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 27.7% more average FPS across 4 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Ryzen AI Max 390 is the better fit. You are getting 1.1% better PassMark, backed by 12 cores and 24 threads.

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

Ryzen AI Max 390 is still the faster CPU overall, but EPYC 7F52 makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen AI Max 390 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $3,100 MSRP, and it gives you a 27.7% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. EPYC 7F52 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.4 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it is easier to justify for price-conscious builds on paper.

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

Ryzen AI Max 390 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2020), a healthier platform with FP11 and DDR5 instead of SP3, and more multi-core headroom with 12 cores / 24 threads instead of 16/32. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

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.

EPYC 7F52 Benchmark Check

Ryzen AI Max 390 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
1080p
low	171 FPS	265 FPS
medium	138 FPS	241 FPS
high	117 FPS	205 FPS
ultra	92 FPS	178 FPS
1440p
low	152 FPS	252 FPS
medium	121 FPS	206 FPS
high	97 FPS	162 FPS
ultra	77 FPS	146 FPS
4K
low	71 FPS	175 FPS
medium	59 FPS	143 FPS
high	47 FPS	107 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	96 FPS

Open EPYC 7F52 Open Ryzen AI Max 390

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
1080p
low	460 FPS	671 FPS
medium	406 FPS	578 FPS
high	311 FPS	435 FPS
ultra	249 FPS	376 FPS
1440p
low	376 FPS	564 FPS
medium	340 FPS	503 FPS
high	270 FPS	392 FPS
ultra	210 FPS	312 FPS
4K
low	234 FPS	318 FPS
medium	215 FPS	288 FPS
high	182 FPS	255 FPS
ultra	148 FPS	219 FPS

Open EPYC 7F52 Open Ryzen AI Max 390

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
1080p
low	596 FPS	769 FPS
medium	488 FPS	602 FPS
high	445 FPS	526 FPS
ultra	380 FPS	442 FPS
1440p
low	502 FPS	668 FPS
medium	416 FPS	527 FPS
high	380 FPS	457 FPS
ultra	327 FPS	387 FPS
4K
low	376 FPS	478 FPS
medium	293 FPS	395 FPS
high	261 FPS	351 FPS
ultra	209 FPS	292 FPS

Open EPYC 7F52 Open Ryzen AI Max 390

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
1080p
low	938 FPS	1046 FPS
medium	860 FPS	953 FPS
high	734 FPS	833 FPS
ultra	647 FPS	751 FPS
1440p
low	731 FPS	838 FPS
medium	647 FPS	746 FPS
high	549 FPS	652 FPS
ultra	469 FPS	566 FPS
4K
low	525 FPS	616 FPS
medium	476 FPS	552 FPS
high	415 FPS	487 FPS
ultra	358 FPS	422 FPS

Open EPYC 7F52 Open Ryzen AI Max 390

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7F52 and Ryzen AI Max 390

EPYC 7F52

The EPYC 7F52 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 14 April 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.9 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 41,388 points. Launch price was $3,100.

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.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 7F52 packs 16 cores / 32 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max 390 offers 12 cores / 24 threads — the EPYC 7F52 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.9 GHz on the EPYC 7F52 versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max 390 — a 24.7% clock advantage for the Ryzen AI Max 390 (base: 3.5 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The EPYC 7F52 uses the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture (7 nm, 14 nm), while the Ryzen AI Max 390 uses Strix Halo (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7F52 scores 41,388 against the Ryzen AI Max 390's 41,834 — a 1.1% lead for the Ryzen AI Max 390. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7F52 vs 64 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max 390.

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
Cores / Threads	16 / 32+33%	12 / 24
Boost Clock	3.9 GHz	5 GHz+28%
Base Clock	3.5 GHz+9%	3.2 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+300%	64 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm, 14 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Zen 2 (2017−2020)	Strix Halo (2025)
PassMark	41,388	41,834+1%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 7F52 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen AI Max 390 uses FP11 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7F52 versus 8000 on the Ryzen AI Max 390 — the Ryzen AI Max 390 supports 85.7% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 7F52 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 128 — 187.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 7F52) vs 4 (Ryzen AI Max 390). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 7F52) vs 28 (Ryzen AI Max 390) — the EPYC 7F52 offers 100 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7F52) and Strix Halo (Ryzen AI Max 390).

Feature	EPYC 7F52	Ryzen AI Max 390
Socket	SP3	FP11
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	8000+150%
Max RAM Capacity	4096+3100%	128
RAM Channels	8+100%	4
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+357%	28

🔧

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. Both support VT-x, VT-d, AMD-V virtualization. The Ryzen AI Max 390 includes integrated graphics (AMD Radeon 8050S), while the EPYC 7F52 requires a dedicated GPU. Direct competitor: EPYC 7F52 rivals Xeon Gold 6248; Ryzen AI Max 390 rivals Apple M4 Max.