AMD EPYC 4244P vs AMD Ryzen 5 240 Comparison

The benchmark database comparison between the AMD EPYC 4244P and the AMD Ryzen 5 240 shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the EPYC 4244P winning all 15 recorded head-to-head tests. Despite both processors featuring 6 cores and 12 threads on the Zen 4 architecture, their design targets diverge sharply: the EPYC is a server/workstation part built for sustained throughput, while the Ryzen 5 is a mobile processor optimized for efficiency. The data reveals that the EPYC 4244P is the outright performance leader in every measured category, though the Ryzen 5 240 counters with a lower power envelope and a more advanced manufacturing node.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4244P dominates the performance landscape across every benchmark category in the database. Its most significant victories come in heavily multithreaded and compute-intensive workloads. The largest margin is in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the EPYC scores 187 against the Ryzen 5's 70, a 167.1% advantage. This suggests a substantial edge in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive calculations that benefit from larger cache hierarchies and higher sustained clocks. Similarly, the cinebench_r23_multicore test shows the EPYC at 23089 versus 13013, a 77.4% lead, indicating that long-running rendering or compilation tasks will complete far faster on the server chip. The passmark_physics test also favors the EPYC heavily, with a score of 1981 compared to 1060, an 86.9% difference, which points to superior handling of physics simulation workloads.

The Ryzen 5 240 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but its strengths lie outside raw performance. It operates at a 45W TDP versus the EPYC's 65W, and it is built on a 4nm process node compared to the EPYC's 5nm, which means it generates less heat and draws less power for a given workload. Its memory bandwidth is higher at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC, which could benefit certain memory-bound tasks in mobile contexts. However, the recorded data shows that this bandwidth advantage does not translate into any benchmark victory. The Ryzen 5 also features the Radeon 760M integrated graphics, a more capable iGPU than the EPYC's base Radeon Graphics, making it the better choice for light gaming or media playback without a discrete GPU, though no benchmark scores for graphics are included in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 4 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC, but they diverge in multiple fundamental ways. The EPYC 4244P uses the Raphael codename and is built on a 5nm process node with a die size of 71 mm² and 6,570 million transistors. It fits into the AMD Socket AM5 and targets the Server/Workstation market segment. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache, providing a generous amount of fast memory for multi-threaded server workloads.

The Ryzen 5 240 uses the Hawk Point codename and is built on a 4nm process node with a significantly larger die size of 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. It fits into the AMD Socket FP8 and targets the Mobile segment. Its cache is smaller: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 16 MB of shared L3 cache, half of the EPYC's allocation. This difference in L3 cache likely contributes to the EPYC's large wins in prime number finding and physics tests, where cache capacity directly impacts performance.

Memory support also differs. The EPYC 4244P supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the Ryzen 5 240 does not. The EPYC offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Ryzen 5 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the EPYC has Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen 5 has the Radeon 760M, which is generally more capable for display output and light rendering. Both have locked multipliers, meaning neither supports manual overclocking.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 240 has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 240 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Ryzen 5 240 does not support ECC memory, whereas the EPYC 4244P does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the largest performance margin between the two processors?

A: The largest margin is in the passmark_find_prime_numbers test, where the EPYC 4244P scores 187 versus the Ryzen 5 240's 70, a 167.1% difference in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 4244P has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 5 240 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 4244P has a TDP of 65W, while the Ryzen 5 240 has a TDP of 45W, making the Ryzen 5 more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The Ryzen 5 240 uses a 4nm process node, while the EPYC 4244P uses a 5nm process node, both from TSMC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The EPYC 4244P has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the Ryzen 5 240 has a base clock of 4.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The EPYC has a higher boost clock, but the Ryzen 5 has a higher base clock. The EPYC's TDP is 65W, while the Ryzen 5's TDP is 45W, a 20W difference favoring the mobile chip.

The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Ryzen 5 uses AMD Socket FP8. The process nodes differ, with the EPYC at 5nm and the Ryzen 5 at 4nm. Transistor counts and die sizes are vastly different, with the EPYC at 6,570 million transistors and 71 mm², and the Ryzen 5 at 25,000 million transistors and 178 mm². The L3 cache differs, with the EPYC at 32 MB shared and the Ryzen 5 at 16 MB shared. Memory bandwidth favors the Ryzen 5 at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. ECC memory support is exclusive to the EPYC. PCIe generations and lane counts differ: the EPYC has Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the Ryzen 5 has Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon Graphics for the EPYC and Radeon 760M for the Ryzen 5. The market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Mobile for the Ryzen 5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4244P wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins vary widely across workload types. The most extreme difference is in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where the EPYC's 187 score eclipses the Ryzen 5's 70, a 167.1% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to cache size and latency, and the EPYC's 32 MB L3 cache versus the Ryzen 5's 16 MB likely explains the magnitude of this win.

In cinebench_r23_multicore, the EPYC scores 23089 against the Ryzen 5's 13013, a 77.4% lead. This is a significant gap for processors with the same core and thread counts, suggesting that the EPYC's higher boost clock (5.10 GHz vs 5.00 GHz) and larger cache allow it to sustain higher performance under full load. The cinebench_r23_singlecore test shows an even larger percentage difference: the EPYC at 3259 versus the Ryzen 5 at 1742, an 87.1% margin. This is surprising given the modest clock difference, indicating that the EPYC's architecture implementation is better optimized for single-threaded burst workloads.

The passmark_physics test follows a similar pattern, with the EPYC at 1981 versus 1060, an 86.9% lead. Passmark_multithread shows an 18.3% advantage for the EPYC (26797 vs 22658), while passmark_data_compression shows a 12.9% lead (302606 vs 267963). Data encryption favors the EPYC by 15% (18232 vs 15849), and extended instructions by 9.6% (22149 vs 20201). Integer math shows a 7.5% edge for the EPYC (78709 vs 73189), while floating point math is nearly tied at 0.5% (45546 vs 45301). Random string sorting favors the EPYC by 17.5% (38048 vs 32385). The smallest margins are in passmark_single_thread, where the EPYC leads by just 1% (3710 vs 3675), and cinebench_r15_singlecore, where the EPYC leads by 21.5% (328 vs 270).

The cinebench_r15_multicore test shows a 12% advantage for the EPYC (2327 vs 2078). Notably, the Ryzen 5 240 has no cinebench_r20 scores in the database, so a direct comparison in that test is unavailable, but the EPYC's r20 scores (9697 multi, 1368 single) stand alone.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for pure performance: the AMD EPYC 4244P is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. With 15 wins out of 15 head-to-head tests, it delivers higher scores across single-threaded, multi-threaded, encryption, compression, physics, and math workloads. The largest margins occur in tests that stress cache and sustained throughput, where the EPYC's 32 MB L3 cache and 5.10 GHz boost clock provide a decisive edge. Users running server or workstation applications, such as rendering, data compression, or scientific simulations, should select the EPYC 4244P without hesitation.

The AMD Ryzen 5 240 is not a competitor in raw performance, but it serves a different purpose. Its 45W TDP, 4nm process node, and higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s) make it a more power-efficient choice for mobile or compact systems. It also includes the Radeon 760M integrated graphics, which is more capable than the EPYC's basic Radeon Graphics, making it the better option for a laptop or small form factor PC with light graphical demands. However, the recorded benchmarks show no workload where the Ryzen 5 outperforms the EPYC, so its appeal rests entirely on power efficiency and platform suitability, not on computational speed. For anyone who prioritizes performance above all else, the EPYC 4244P is the clear winner from the data available.