• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Debuts Ryzen AI Max Series "Strix Halo" SoC: up to 16 "Zen 5" cores, Massive iGPU

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
47,802 (7.40/day)
Location
Dublin, Ireland
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 AORUS Elite V2
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 16GB DDR4-3200
Video Card(s) Galax RTX 4070 Ti EX
Storage Samsung 990 1TB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
AMD at the 2025 International CES debuted the Ryzen AI Max 300 series of mobile processors. These chips are designed to go up against the Apple M4 Pro, or the chip that powers the Apple MacBook Pro. The idea behind it is to provide leadership CPU and graphics performance from a single package, minimizing the PCB footprint from having a discrete GPU. In stark contrast, the Intel Core Ultra 200V "Lunar Lake," is designed more to go against the Apple M4, or the chips that power the latest MacBook Air but not quite the MacBook Pro. What sets "Strix Halo" functionally apart from "Lunar Lake" or even the M4 Pro, is that the AMD chip doesn't have memory-on-package (MoP), it relies on discrete LPDDR5X memory chips.

The "Strix Halo" processor is "Fire Range" on steroids. There are one or two "Zen 5" CCDs, for up to a 16-core/32-thread core configuration. Each of these "Zen 5" cores are unlike the ones on "Strix Point," in that they feature a fully unlocked AVX512 hardware pipeline (512-bit FP). The CCD shares a lavish 32 MB of L3 cache among 8 "Zen 5" cores. This is hardly the star attraction. Unlike "Fire Range," which features the small 6 nm client I/O die from "Granite Ridge," The new "Strix Halo" features a massive SoC die built on the 5 nm EUV foundry node. This packs the star attraction of the processor, it's oversized iGPU that has a massive 40 compute units (2,560 stream processors).



The iGPU of "Strix Point" is based on the RDNA 3.5 graphics architecture. RDNA 3.5 has numerous improvements over RDNA 3, including optimization for the LPDDR5X memory type. The iGPU has 40 CU, which works out to 2,560 stream processors 80 AI accelerators, and 40 Ray accelerators, besides 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. AMD runs the iGPU engine clock at speeds of up to 2.90 GHz. AMD is looking to achieve gaming performance similar to that of the desktop Radeon RX 6750 XT with this iGPU.

Besides the oversized iGPU, the SoC die features the same Ryzen AI XDNA 2 NPU found on "Strix Point," which belts out 50 AI TOPS, and meets Microsoft Copilot+ AI PC logo requirements. This NPU, combined with the AI acceleration capabilities of the iGPU, makes the "Strix Halo" the first PC processor capable of running a 70B parameter LLM entirely on one package.

To keep the up to 16 "Zen 5" CPU cores, the large iGPU with 40 CU, and the 50 TOPS NPU fed with sufficient memory bandwidth, AMD has given the "Strix Halo" a quad-channel (256-bit) LPDDR5X-6400 memory interface. This should give the processor a memory bandwidth of 256-bit. The iGPU talks to the system over the core switching fabric (Infinity Fabric) of the SoC die.

AMD is launching as many as 7 processor models based on "Strix Halo," three of these are for the consumer segment, and four of these are AMD PRO branded models for the commercial notebook segment.



The lineup is led by the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, with a 16-core/32-thread CPU that runs at 3.00 GHz base, 5.10 GHz maximum boost. The iGPU is the maxed out variant labeled Radeon 8060S, with all 40 CU being enabled, and a 2.90 GHz iGPU engine clock. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has essentially the same specs, but with the added AMD PRO commercial feature-set. Both chips come with a configurable TDP range of 45 W to 120 W.

Next up are the Ryzen AI Max 390 and Ryzen AI Max PRO 390. These feature a 12-core/24-thread CPU (all "Zen 5" cores), with a 3.20 GHz base frequency, and 5.00 GHz max boost. The iGPU is cut down, is branded Radeon 8050S, and comes with 32 CU (2,048 stream processors, 64 AI accelerators, 32 Ray accelerators, 128 TMU, 64 ROPs), and a 2.80 GHz engine clock. The cTDP is unchanged at 45 W to 120 W.

A step-down from these are the Ryzen AI Max 385 and Ryzen AI Max PRO 385. These feature a single "Zen 5" CCD for an 8-core/16-thread CPU configuration, which ticks at 3.60 GHz base frequency, and 5.00 GHz maximum boost. The iGPU is the same Radeon 8050S as the Ryzen AI Max 390, with 32 CU.

At the very entry level is the Ryzen AI Max PRO 380. There is no consumer variant of this chip. It comes with a 6-core/12-thread CPU config (all "Zen 5" cores), 3.60 GHz base and 4.90 GHz max boost; and at truncated 16 MB of shared L3 cache on the CCD. The iGPU is heavily truncated, too. It is branded Radeon 8040S, and comes with just 16 CU (1,024 stream processors, 32 AI accelerators, 16 Ray accelerators, 64 TMU, 32 ROPs).

Below are AMD's performance claims for the Ryzen AI Max series.



AMD Ryzen AI Max 300 series processors should begin appearing as ultraportable gaming notebooks such as the ASUS ROG Flow Z13; the HP ZBook Ultra G1a mobile workstation, or the HP Z2 Mini G1a mini-PC workstation, in the first half of 2025.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
What the eff are these graphs, did AMD get them at the same place where they got the "AI max Pro" branding :wtf:
QQc2XKSCpiM4SjAm.jpg
 
I'll take a 385 with a 65W TDP in a (passive) mini-PC... for a reasonable price... and that's where it becomes unrealistic...
 
Need this reviewed asap :)
 
This and the Z2 are the biggest news between Intel, AMD and Nvidia at CES. It’s a bit lost on the TPU crowd as this is primary a discrete GPU enthusiast website. These products are gonna be hot.
 
Holy 40 compute units Batman! That could be really nice in laptops, it should even be able to do some 1080p gaming!
 
This looks interesting, but it's a premium processor which will go into expensive laptops, so I think any laptop that offers this should use LPCAMM memory or it's just begging to become an expensive paperweight.
 
The presentation for Strix Halo has a total shit show IMO.
What the eff are these graphs, did AMD get them at the same place where they got the "AI max Pro" branding :wtf:
QQc2XKSCpiM4SjAm.jpg
That's a utterly stupid comparison.
They said they left their CPU at 55W, against a 30W CPU that's already a stupid model - that i9 has a 30W TDP vs 17W of the other LNL CPUs to achieve a 100MHz higher boost clock. Let's not forget it's a 16c/32t CPU vs a 4p4e one.

Their comparison against the M4 Pro was also awful, they did not disclose the TDP used, and compared it to another 30W CPU, with not so impressive MT gains (apart from v-ray). 4x the power (assuming they used the 120W cTDP) for minor gains, impressive.

Adding to that, the comparison against the 4090 was also extremely non-sense. They used a 70B model that requires more than 35GB of memory on a 24GB GPU, which has to offload many layers to the CPU. And no comparisons against no other GPU whatsoever in any other scenarios.
To keep the up to 16 "Zen 5" CPU cores, the large iGPU with 40 CU, and the 50 TOPS NPU fed with sufficient memory bandwidth, AMD has given the "Strix Halo" a quad-channel (256-bit) LPDDR5X-6400 memory interface. This should give the processor a memory bandwidth of 256-bit. The iGPU talks to the system over the core switching fabric (Infinity Fabric) of the SoC die.
Some stuff seems to be wrong here. AMD mentioned a bandwidth of 256GB/s, so that would mean they're using LPDDR5X-8000 with their 256-bit bus.
 
People complaining about AMD's graphs when every other company does the same or worst. Let's not forget that Intel was worshiped FOR YEARS as the company having the best gaming CPUs, CPUs that where hitting 250W+ to win by 2-3% over AMD's 120W CPUs. And now that AMD is doing the same thing, because it is obvious that honesty can drive you to bankruptcy, people complain.
Consumers, tech reporters and companies that are going to use these parts need presentations with pretty numbers. And that's what companies are giving them.

We here will wait for reviews no matter if these charts are true or exaggerated or misleading, we will wait for reviews. These presentation charts are NOT for us.
 
I want one of these for my A 620i.
 
People complaining about AMD's graphs when every other company does the same or worst. Let's not forget that Intel was worshiped FOR YEARS as the company having the best gaming CPUs, CPUs that where hitting 250W+ to win by 2-3% over AMD's 120W CPUs. And now that AMD is doing the same thing, because it is obvious that honesty can drive you to bankruptcy, people complain.
Consumers, tech reporters and companies that are going to use these parts need presentations with pretty numbers. And that's what companies are giving them.

We here will wait for reviews no matter if these charts are true or exaggerated or misleading, we will wait for reviews. These presentation charts are NOT for us.
To be fair, people always complains about such graphs, no matter the company. Today wouldn't be any different :p
But in this specific case, it doesn't even matter if those graphs are true or not, they're comparing products that have nothing to do with one another. It'd be the same as comparing an N100 to a 7950x, it just doesn't make sense.
 
Some stuff seems to be wrong here. AMD mentioned a bandwidth of 256GB/s, so that would mean they're using LPDDR5X-8000 with their 256-bit bus.
Most likely that's the case, but for some reason they're using LPDDR5x 8533 & running it slower?

HP ZBook Ultra 14 G1a specifications

 
But in this specific case, it doesn't even matter if those graphs are true or not, they're comparing products that have nothing to do with one another. It'd be the same as comparing an N100 to a 7950x, it just doesn't make sense.
Other companies do the same. Take one model and compare it to 5 different ones to make it look like it is winning in all categories.

Fan part. When the first Ryzen series was out, the Ryzen 1000, intel fans where comparing one AMD model to 5 Intel models to make it look like it was losing in all 5 categories!!!
 
Most likely that's the case, but for some reason they're using LPDDR5x 8533 & running it slower?

HP ZBook Ultra 14 G1a specifications

"transfer rates up to 8000MT/s"

Yeah, weird how this product is underclocking the memory a bit. Could it be strix halo's fault, or just an HP thing?

Other companies do the same. Take one model and compare it to 5 different ones to make it look like it is winning in all categories.

Fan part. When the first Ryzen series was out, the Ryzen 1000, intel fans where comparing one AMD model to 5 Intel models to make it look like it was losing in all 5 categories!!!
I didn't deny that, and people also complained about those Intel graphs as well.
 
What the eff are these graphs, did AMD get them at the same place where they got the "AI max Pro" branding :wtf:
QQc2XKSCpiM4SjAm.jpg
Dont worry, its says "AI" in the graph. Everything is good and right on schedule for skynet.

I'll take a 385 with a 65W TDP in a (passive) mini-PC... for a reasonable price... and that's where it becomes unrealistic...
A 385 with 40 CU chip is my dream.
 
People complaining about AMD's graphs when every other company does the same or worst.
Two wrongs do not make a right. Dont they teach this in preschool?
Let's not forget that Intel was worshiped FOR YEARS as the company having the best gaming CPUs, CPUs that where hitting 250W+ to win by 2-3% over AMD's 120W CPUs. And now that AMD is doing the same thing, because it is obvious that honesty can drive you to bankruptcy, people complain.
Consumers, tech reporters and companies that are going to use these parts need presentations with pretty numbers. And that's what companies are giving them.

We here will wait for reviews no matter if these charts are true or exaggerated or misleading, we will wait for reviews. These presentation charts are NOT for us.
This is some hard revisionist history. Intel has steadily lost ground to AMD and starting with the ryzen 3000s their DIY gaming market took a heavy hit.

A 385 with 40 CU chip is my dream.
I'm going to hazard a guess and say in the vast majority of cases the 385 and 395 will produce nearly the same results in gaming due to TDP, memory, and boost limitations.
 
LET'S GO! Most interesting chip in a long time, I really want a new laptop using one these!
 
LET'S GO! Most interesting chip in a long time, I really want a new laptop using one these!

Until you see the price. Go look at what HP charges for a mobile workstation.
 
Until you see the price. Go look at what HP charges for a mobile workstation.

I know the prices, I'm using and used workstations like this from Lenovo, HP and Dell in the past. The difference I think is this one will finally be worth the price of admission (and it's not like it's coming out of my pocket anyway :D)
 
Yeah, weird how this product is underclocking the memory a bit. Could it be strix halo's fault, or just an HP thing?
Hp likes to lock everything down and they take insyde h2o bios and delete most of the options
 
Now this is very promising. And if it performs well this would be killer in SFF and itx builds
 
Since RDNA 3.5 is mobile, and most of the stuff comes with NPUs, does RDNA 3.5 even have AI Accelerators still? If so, what is the point?
 
I'm going to hazard a guess and say in the vast majority of cases the 385 and 395 will produce nearly the same results in gaming due to TDP, memory, and boost limitations.
It will be interesting what the quad channel interface can do here. But yeah, on a reasonable TDP setting, the difference won't be huge between those. But it should be significantly faster than Strix Point in gaming because of the interface.
 
Back
Top