AMD EPYC 4344P vs AMD EPYC 4364P Comparison

Both the AMD EPYC 4364P and the AMD EPYC 4344P are 8-core, 16-thread Zen 4 processors built for the EPYC 4004 series, sharing the same Raphael codename, 5 nm process from TSMC, and a 71 mm² die size containing 6,570 million transistors. They are nearly identical parts separated by clock speed and power envelope, with the 4364P launching at a higher MSRP of $399 compared to the 4344P’s $329. The benchmark data shows a consistent, though modest, performance advantage for the 4364P across most workloads, with a 14-3 win tally in head-to-head tests. However, the 4344P counters with significant wins in specific physics and memory-latency-sensitive tasks, making the choice between them workload-dependent rather than a simple hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base and boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P operates at a 4.50 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock, while the AMD EPYC 4344P runs at 3.80 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost.

Q: What is the difference in thermal design power between the two?

A: The EPYC 4364P has a TDP of 105 watts, while the EPYC 4344P is rated for 65 watts, a 40-watt difference that directly impacts cooling and power delivery requirements.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory and the same PCIe configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR5 ECC memory across a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 28 lanes from the CPU.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The EPYC 4364P scores 29,589 points versus 28,636 for the 4344P, a 3.3% advantage for the 4364P.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the EPYC 4344P beats the 4364P?

A: Yes, the 4344P wins in PassMark data encryption (24,476 vs 24,174), PassMark physics (1,987 vs 1,785), and PassMark random string sorting (49,001 vs 48,344).

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The 4364P has an average benchmark score of 45,970 and sits in the 89th percentile, while the 4344P averages 45,122 and also ranks in the 89th percentile.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture: Zen 4, codename Raphael, manufactured on TSMC’s 5 nm process. The die size is identical at 71 mm², and both integrate 6,570 million transistors. Core and thread counts match at 8 cores and 16 threads, and the cache hierarchy is completely unchanged — 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is identical as well, with dual-channel DDR5, 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC capability. The PCIe implementation is also the same: Gen 5 with 28 lanes from the CPU. Both parts include integrated Radeon Graphics, which is notable for a server/workstation segment part.

The only architectural differences between the two lie in clock speeds and TDP. The 4364P runs at 4.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost, while the 4344P is clocked at 3.80 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. This 700 MHz base clock gap is substantial and explains most of the performance delta in multi-threaded workloads. The TDP difference is equally significant: 105 watts for the 4364P versus 65 watts for the 4344P. This means the 4364P is designed to sustain higher all-core frequencies for longer periods, while the 4344P is tuned for efficiency and lower thermal output. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. Both share the same release date of 2024-05-20 and are currently in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4364P is the clear winner in raw compute throughput, particularly in rendering and number-crunching tasks. It leads in every Cinebench test — R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core — with deltas ranging from 3.2% to 3.4%. In PassMark workloads, it wins in data compression, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithreaded performance, and single-thread performance. Its largest margins come in find prime numbers (7.3% ahead) and extended instructions (6.8% ahead), suggesting a particular strength in algorithmic and SIMD-heavy code. The 4364P also edges out the 4344P in passmark_multithread by 1.7%, which reflects its higher sustained boost clocks under load.

The EPYC 4344P wins in three specific PassMark tests: data encryption, physics, and random string sorting. The physics win is substantial at 10.2% (1,987 vs 1,785), which is the largest single delta in either direction across all benchmarks. This suggests the 4344P’s lower TDP and potentially different power management behavior may yield better performance in bursty, latency-sensitive workloads that do not require sustained all-core load. The wins in data encryption (1.2%) and random string sorting (1.3%) are smaller but consistent, pointing to memory-access patterns where the 4344P’s characteristics offer a slight advantage. For general server workloads that involve encryption, physics simulation, or sorting algorithms, the 4344P holds a measurable edge.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a few specification fields, all related to clock speed, power, and pricing. The base clock is 4.50 GHz for the 4364P versus 3.80 GHz for the 4344P. The boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 5.30 GHz. The TDP is 105 watts versus 65 watts. The launch MSRP is $399 for the 4364P and $329 for the 4344P. Every other specification — cores, threads, cache, memory, PCIe, socket, process node, foundry, die size, transistor count, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, release date, and multiplier lock — is identical. Both share the same part family, EPYC 4004 series, and the same socket, AMD Socket AM5. The part numbers differ: 100-000001477 for the 4364P and 100-000001479 for the 4344P, but that is a manufacturing identifier rather than a functional difference.

The TDP gap deserves emphasis because it is the most consequential specification difference beyond clocks. A 65-watt chip can be cooled by a more modest heatsink and draws less power in dense server environments, while the 105-watt part requires more substantial thermal solutions. The base clock difference of 700 MHz is the primary driver of multi-threaded performance gaps, as it dictates sustained all-core frequency. The boost clock difference of only 100 MHz is minor by comparison, meaning single-threaded performance is closer than multi-threaded performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from 17 head-to-head benchmarks shows a decisive but not overwhelming victory for the 4364P, which wins 14 tests to the 4344P’s 3. The Cinebench suite is uniformly in favor of the 4364P. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 4364P scores 2,982 versus 2,886, a 3.3% lead. Single-core R15 is also 3.2% ahead at 420 versus 407. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 12,427 versus 12,027 (3.3%), and single-core shows 1,754 versus 1,697 (3.4%). Cinebench R23 multi-core is 29,589 versus 28,636 (3.3%), and single-core is 4,177 versus 4,042 (3.3%). Across all six Cinebench tests, the delta is remarkably consistent at roughly 3.3%, indicating that the 4364P’s clock advantage translates evenly across both single- and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The PassMark results show a more varied picture. The 4364P wins data compression by 1.4% (408,220 vs 402,701), extended instructions by 6.8% (31,605 vs 29,582), find prime numbers by 7.3% (177 vs 165), floating point math by 5.7% (66,946 vs 63,309), integer math by 1.9% (107,775 vs 105,779), multithread by 1.7% (33,883 vs 33,325), and single-thread by 2.6% (3,619 vs 3,526). The extended instructions and prime number results are the strongest indicators of the 4364P’s computational advantage, with deltas more than double the Cinebench margins.

The 4344P’s wins are concentrated and significant. The PassMark physics result is the standout: 1,987 versus 1,785, a 10.2% advantage for the lower-TDP part. This is the largest margin in any benchmark and flips the expected outcome based on clock speeds. Random string sorting goes to the 4344P by 1.3% (49,001 vs 48,344), and data encryption goes to the 4344P by 1.2% (24,476 vs 24,174). These wins suggest that the 4344P’s power management profile or memory subsystem behavior provides an edge in certain latency-critical or bursty workloads, even though its raw compute throughput is lower. The average benchmark scores reflect the overall balance: 45,970 for the 4364P versus 45,122 for the 4344P, a difference of about 1.9%, which is smaller than the Cinebench deltas but consistent with the mixed PassMark results. Both processors rank in the 89th percentile of all CPUs, indicating that they are closely matched in the broader performance landscape.