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.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (12,380 vs 16,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +41.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Core i5-12400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Core i5-12400F

2022

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

2025

Why buy it

✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +41.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).
✅Draws 55W instead of 65W, a 10W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon 8050S, while Core i5-12400F needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower Cinebench R23 multi-core (12,380 vs 16,500).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (18 MB vs 32 MB).
❌Launch MSRP is still $174 MSRP, while Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌18.2% higher power demand at 65W vs 55W.

Trade-offs

❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i5-12400F.

Quick Answers

So, is Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 better than Core i5-12400F?

Yes. Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the better overall CPU here. You are getting a 41.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data, 33.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, 61.3% higher PassMark, and the stronger long-term platform, which makes it the stronger all-around choice.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is the better pick here. According to our tests, it delivers 41.2% 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 PRO 385 is the better fit. You are getting 33.3% better Cinebench R23 multi-core, backed by 8 cores and 16 threads. It also carries the larger cache pool with 77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB).

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

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is still the faster CPU overall, but Core i5-12400F makes more sense if price matters more than absolute performance. Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 is at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $174 MSRP, and it gives you a 41.2% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i5-12400F is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (112.3 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 PRO 385 is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2025 vs 2022), 77.8% larger total L3 cache (32 MB vs 18 MB), and more multi-core headroom with 8 cores / 16 threads instead of 6/12. 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.

Core i5-12400F Benchmark Check

Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	183 FPS	277 FPS
medium	168 FPS	243 FPS
high	139 FPS	209 FPS
ultra	119 FPS	179 FPS
1440p
low	153 FPS	233 FPS
medium	132 FPS	185 FPS
high	106 FPS	153 FPS
ultra	89 FPS	134 FPS
4K
low	87 FPS	162 FPS
medium	81 FPS	129 FPS
high	64 FPS	100 FPS
ultra	49 FPS	86 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	471 FPS	684 FPS
medium	397 FPS	565 FPS
high	341 FPS	460 FPS
ultra	301 FPS	417 FPS
1440p
low	407 FPS	591 FPS
medium	351 FPS	514 FPS
high	309 FPS	422 FPS
ultra	265 FPS	360 FPS
4K
low	282 FPS	352 FPS
medium	248 FPS	311 FPS
high	229 FPS	286 FPS
ultra	196 FPS	251 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	488 FPS	788 FPS
medium	488 FPS	788 FPS
high	488 FPS	706 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	594 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	788 FPS
medium	488 FPS	644 FPS
high	485 FPS	559 FPS
ultra	434 FPS	472 FPS
4K
low	442 FPS	562 FPS
medium	389 FPS	459 FPS
high	337 FPS	408 FPS
ultra	274 FPS	338 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
1080p
low	488 FPS	788 FPS
medium	488 FPS	788 FPS
high	488 FPS	788 FPS
ultra	488 FPS	781 FPS
1440p
low	488 FPS	788 FPS
medium	488 FPS	768 FPS
high	488 FPS	673 FPS
ultra	473 FPS	590 FPS
4K
low	488 FPS	609 FPS
medium	450 FPS	541 FPS
high	391 FPS	486 FPS
ultra	330 FPS	426 FPS

Open Core i5-12400F Open Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Core i5-12400F and Ryzen AI Max PRO 385

Core i5-12400F

The Core i5-12400F is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 January 2022 (3 years ago). It is based on the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 18 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on Intel 7 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1700. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 19,532 points. Launch price was $180.

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

The Core i5-12400F packs 6 cores / 12 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i5-12400F versus 5 GHz on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 — a 12.8% clock advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i5-12400F uses the Alder Lake-S (2022) architecture (Intel 7 nm), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses Strix Halo (2025) (4 nm). In PassMark, the Core i5-12400F scores 19,532 against the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385's 31,508 — a 46.9% lead for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385. Cinebench R23 multi-core: 12,380 vs 16,500 (28.5% advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,700 vs 2,886, a 51.7% lead for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 657 vs 14,136 (182.2% advantage for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). L3 cache: 18 MB (total) on the Core i5-12400F vs 32 MB (total) on the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Cores / Threads	6 / 12	8 / 16+33%
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz	5 GHz+14%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.6 GHz+44%
L3 Cache	18 MB (total)	32 MB (total)+78%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+25%	1 MB (per core)
Process	Intel 7 nm	4 nm-43%
Architecture	Alder Lake-S (2022)	Strix Halo (2025)
PassMark	19,532	31,508+61%
Cinebench R23 Multi	12,380	16,500+33%
Geekbench 6 Single	1,700	2,886+70%
Geekbench 6 Multi	657	14,136+2052%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i5-12400F uses the LGA1700 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 uses FP11 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200 memory speed. Both support up to 128 GB of RAM. Memory channels: 2 (Core i5-12400F) vs 8 (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). Both provide 20 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: H610,B660,H670,Z690,B760,H770,Z790 (Core i5-12400F) and Strix Halo platform (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385).

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Socket	LGA1700	FP11
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%
Max RAM Speed	DDR5-4800, DDR4-3200	LPDDR5x-8000
Max RAM Capacity	128 GB	128 GB
RAM Channels	2	8+300%
ECC Support	No	No
PCIe Lanes	20	20

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i5-12400F) vs AMD-V (Ryzen AI Max PRO 385). The Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 includes integrated graphics (Radeon 8050S), while the Core i5-12400F requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i5-12400F targets Gaming Performance/Value, Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 targets Enterprise AI Mobile. Direct competitor: Core i5-12400F rivals Ryzen 5 5600; Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 rivals M3 Max.

Feature	Core i5-12400F	Ryzen AI Max PRO 385
Integrated GPU	No	Yes
IGPU Model	—	Radeon 8050S
Unlocked	—	Yes
AVX-512	—	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	AMD-V
Target Use	Gaming Performance/Value	Enterprise AI Mobile