AMD EPYC 4244P vs AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4244P and AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT are both 84th-percentile processors, yet they achieve that status through fundamentally different strategies. The EPYC 4244P wins 3 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with its single-thread performance being a decisive 35.3% advantage, while the Ryzen 9 3900XT dominates the remaining 14 tests, often by double-digit margins. This is not a close contest of equals; it is a stark fork between a newer, faster 6-core server chip and an older, wider 12-core desktop processor.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT is the clear winner for multi-threaded and throughput-oriented workloads. Its 12 cores and 24 threads give it an insurmountable lead in nearly every parallel benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 27688 versus the EPYC’s 23089, a 16.6% gap. The same margin repeats across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, indicating a consistent architectural advantage in heavily threaded rendering tasks. The 3900XT also excels in data-heavy operations; its Passmark data compression score of 452328 is 33.1% higher than the EPYC’s 302606, and its data encryption score of 28634 beats 18232 by 36.3%. For integer math, floating-point math, and random string sorting, the 3900XT leads by 21.1%, 22.2%, and 21.3%, respectively. If the workload scales with core count, the 3900XT is the correct choice.

The AMD EPYC 4244P wins where single-thread speed and specific latency-sensitive tasks matter. Its Passmark single-thread score of 3710 is 35.3% higher than the 3900XT’s 2742. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The EPYC also wins Passmark physics, scoring 1981 against 1776, an 11.5% advantage. This suggests that despite having half the cores, the newer Zen 4 architecture delivers superior per-thread performance that benefits physics simulations and other lightly threaded workloads. The EPYC’s win count is small, but its victories are in areas where the 3900XT cannot compensate with additional cores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by two full architecture generations. The EPYC 4244P uses Zen 4 on a 5 nm TSMC process, with the Raphael codename, while the 3900XT uses Zen 2 on a 7 nm TSMC process, codenamed Matisse 2. The EPYC’s process node is denser, allowing it to pack 6,570 million transistors into a 71 mm² die. The 3900XT uses 7,600 million transistors spread across two 74 mm² dies, a chiplet design that the EPYC does not employ. The EPYC’s base clock is 3.80 GHz with a boost of 5.10 GHz, while the 3900XT starts at 3.90 GHz but only boosts to 4.70 GHz. The higher boost clock on the EPYC is a direct contributor to its single-thread victory.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, but the EPYC has 1 MB of L2 per core versus 512 KB per core on the 3900XT. The L3 cache is reversed in total size: the EPYC has 32 MB shared, while the 3900XT has 64 MB. The EPYC supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the 3900XT uses DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the 3900XT. The EPYC’s PCIe implementation is Gen 5 with 28 lanes, whereas the 3900XT is limited to Gen 4 with 24 lanes. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the 3900XT has none. The EPYC is locked, while the 3900XT has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most striking result is Passmark single-thread, where the EPYC 4244P scores 3710 versus 2742, a 35.3% lead. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap. The EPYC’s advantage here is larger than any multi-core deficit it faces. In contrast, the 3900XT’s largest win is in Passmark data encryption, where it scores 28634 against 18232, a 36.3% margin. Encryption workloads often scale with core count and benefit from the 3900XT’s 12-core configuration.

The multi-core Cinebench results are uniform: the 3900XT wins R15, R20, and R23 multi-core by exactly 16.6% each. The scores are 2790 vs 2327, 11628 vs 9697, and 27688 vs 23089. The consistency suggests a fixed throughput advantage. Single-core Cinebench results follow a similar pattern, with the 3900XT winning by 16.5% to 16.6% across all three versions. This is notable because it contradicts the Passmark single-thread result. The 3900XT wins Cinebench single-core but loses Passmark single-thread by a wide margin, indicating that the two tests measure different aspects of performance.

In Passmark integer math, the 3900XT scores 99722 versus 78709, a 21.1% win. Floating-point math shows 58513 vs 45546, a 22.2% margin. Random string sorting favors the 3900XT at 48327 vs 38048, a 21.3% difference. The 3900XT also wins extended instructions (28586 vs 22149, 22.5%) and find prime numbers (214 vs 187, 12.6%). The only other EPYC win is Passmark physics, where it scores 1981 against 1776, an 11.5% advantage. The EPYC’s physics win is notable because it suggests that the newer architecture handles specific instruction sequences better, even with fewer cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4244P wins Passmark single-thread with a score of 3710 versus 2742, a 35.3% advantage. However, the Ryzen 9 3900XT wins all three Cinebench single-core tests by approximately 16.6%, so the result depends on the specific benchmark.

Q: Is the Ryzen 9 3900XT always faster in multi-threaded tests?

A: Yes, the 3900XT wins every multi-threaded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (27688 vs 23089) and Passmark multithread (32575 vs 26797).

Q: Does the EPYC 4244P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 4244P supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 9 3900XT does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 4244P supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while the 3900XT supports DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4244P has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz on the 3900XT.

Q: Are both processors on the same socket?

A: No, the EPYC 4244P uses AMD Socket AM5, while the 3900XT uses AMD Socket AM4.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The EPYC 4244P has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the 3900XT has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC’s base clock is 3.80 GHz versus 3.90 GHz on the 3900XT, but the EPYC’s boost clock is higher at 5.10 GHz versus 4.70 GHz. The EPYC has a TDP of 65 watts, while the 3900XT is rated at 105 watts. The EPYC uses a 5 nm process, the 3900XT a 7 nm process. The EPYC has a single 71 mm² die with 6,570 million transistors; the 3900XT has two 74 mm² dies with 7,600 million transistors. L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the EPYC versus 512 KB per core on the 3900XT. L3 cache is 32 MB on the EPYC versus 64 MB on the 3900XT. Memory support is DDR5 on the EPYC versus DDR4 on the 3900XT. The EPYC offers PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes; the 3900XT offers PCIe Gen 4 with 24 lanes. The EPYC has integrated Radeon Graphics, the 3900XT has none. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with ECC memory support, while the 3900XT is a desktop part without ECC. The EPYC has a locked multiplier; the 3900XT is unlocked. The EPYC launched with a $229 launch MSRP, while the 3900XT launched with a $499 launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT is the superior processor for any workload that can use more than six cores. It wins 14 of 17 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 12.6% in find prime numbers to 36.3% in data encryption. Its 12-core, 24-thread configuration provides a raw throughput advantage that the EPYC 4244P cannot overcome, even with a newer architecture. For rendering, data compression, encryption, and general multi-threaded compute, the 3900XT is the recommended choice.

The AMD EPYC 4244P is the correct pick for single-thread performance and specific server features. Its 35.3% lead in Passmark single-thread is a decisive advantage, and its wins in Passmark physics show that it handles certain instruction patterns better. The EPYC also offers ECC memory support, DDR5 bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 5, making it suitable for workstation reliability and newer I/O standards. However, these benefits come at the cost of multi-threaded performance, where it trails the 3900XT by at least 16.6% in every Cinebench test. The EPYC wins on architectural modernity and platform features, but the 3900XT wins on sheer computing power. Choose the EPYC for single-thread speed and server-grade reliability; choose the 3900XT for everything else.