AMD EPYC 4344P vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and AMD EPYC 4344P are two fundamentally different processors that end up in a surprisingly close overall fight, despite their divergent designs. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375, a 12-core mobile part, and the EPYC 4344P, an 8-core server chip, both land in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The data shows a split decision: the EPYC wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Ryzen AI takes 6, with each dominating in distinct workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in single-core performance, where the EPYC 4344P is in a different class entirely. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4042 against the Ryzen AI's 1988, a massive 50.8% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story, with the EPYC at 407 versus 301, a 26% lead. This is the clearest indicator of the architectural gulf between the two: the EPYC's higher 5.30 GHz boost clock and Zen 4 architecture simply outpace the Ryzen AI's 5.10 GHz boost in lightly-threaded tasks.

The multi-core picture is more nuanced. The EPYC wins Cinebench R23 multi-core decisively, scoring 28636 versus 21812, a 23.8% margin. However, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 strikes back in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, winning 3334 to 2886, a 15.5% advantage. This reversal suggests that the Ryzen AI's 12 cores and 24 threads scale better in certain legacy workloads, while the EPYC's 8 cores and 16 threads with higher per-core throughput win in modern rendering tasks.

PassMark results further illuminate the split. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins big in floating-point math (75153 vs 63309, an 18.7% lead) and integer math (121754 vs 105779, a 15.1% lead). It also edges out the EPYC in data compression (404918 vs 402701, a slim 0.6% margin) and single-thread performance (3867 vs 3526, a 9.7% lead). The EPYC counters with wins in data encryption (24476 vs 20802, a 15% margin), physics (1987 vs 1819, an 8.5% lead), and random string sorting (49001 vs 44552, a 9.1% lead). The EPYC also takes the extended instructions test narrowly (29582 vs 29269, a 1.1% margin) and find prime numbers (165 vs 122, a 26.1% lead).

The overall multithread PassMark score is nearly a tie, with the EPYC at 33325 and the Ryzen AI at 32916, a 1.2% difference. This near-parity in aggregate multithread performance, despite the EPYC's massive single-core lead and the Ryzen AI's core-count advantage, underscores how different workloads favor each chip. The Ryzen AI's average benchmark score is 46030, while the EPYC sits at 45122, a 2% overall gap in the Ryzen AI's favor, but the distribution of wins tells a more complex story.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4344P is significantly ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4042 versus the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's 1988, a 50.8% advantage. The EPYC also leads in Cinebench R15 single-core with 407 versus 301.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 ever faster in multi-core tests?

A: Yes. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins Cinebench R15 multi-core with 3334 against the EPYC's 2886, a 15.5% margin. It also wins PassMark integer math (121754 vs 105779) and floating-point math (75153 vs 63309) by over 15%.

Q: How do the two compare in data encryption?

A: The EPYC 4344P is the clear winner in PassMark data encryption, scoring 24476 versus the Ryzen AI's 20802, a 15% advantage. This suggests the EPYC's architecture is better suited for cryptographic workloads.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The AMD EPYC 4344P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC wins the majority of benchmarks.

Q: What are the differences in memory support?

A: Both support DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 also supports LPDDR5X and has a higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 4344P has 83.2 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory, which the Ryzen AI does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4344P has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC also has a much higher base clock of 3.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users who prioritize raw single-thread performance: the AMD EPYC 4344P is the winner. Its 50.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 26% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core are not minor margins; they represent a fundamental advantage in per-core throughput. For workloads that are lightly threaded or depend on high clock speeds, the EPYC is the only rational pick.

However, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is not without its own compelling case. Its wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (15.5%) and PassMark integer and floating-point math (both over 15%) indicate that certain multi-threaded and mathematical workloads run noticeably faster on the 12-core mobile chip. For users running those specific tasks, the Ryzen AI offers a tangible performance benefit.

The verdict hinges on workload profile. If the priority is maximum single-core speed, encryption performance, and modern multi-core rendering (Cinebench R23), the EPYC 4344P is the superior processor. If the workload involves legacy multi-threaded applications, heavy integer or floating-point math, and data compression, the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 provides the better results. The overall average benchmark scores are close (46030 vs 45122), but the distribution of wins is heavily skewed by test type, so matching the chip to the task is essential.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core specifications. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4344P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, compared to the Ryzen AI's 2.00 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The EPYC has a significantly higher TDP of 65 watts versus 28 watts for the Ryzen AI.

The processors use different sockets: the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the EPYC 4344P uses AMD Socket AM5. They also differ in process node, with the Ryzen AI built on a 4 nm process and the EPYC on a 5 nm process. The EPYC has a larger L3 cache at 32 MB shared, while the Ryzen AI has 16 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC also has a larger die size of 71 mm², while the Ryzen AI's die is 233 mm².

Memory support differs as well. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, while the EPYC 4344P supports only DDR5. The Ryzen AI has higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. Critically, the EPYC supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen AI does not. PCIe capabilities also differ, with the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the Ryzen AI offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes.

The integrated graphics differ, with the Ryzen AI featuring the Radeon 890M and the EPYC featuring a generic Radeon Graphics solution. The market segments are distinct: the Ryzen AI is a mobile processor, while the EPYC is for server/workstation use. The EPYC 4344P has a launch MSRP of $329. The transistor count is listed for the EPYC at 6,570 million, while no figure is given for the Ryzen AI.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the codename Strix Point, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation. It is built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 233 mm². The EPYC 4344P uses the older Zen 4 architecture under the codename Raphael, belonging to the EPYC 4004 series, and is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 71 mm².

Cache layouts differ significantly. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC 4344P has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, but its L3 cache is larger at 32 MB shared. The EPYC also lists 6,570 million transistors, while the Ryzen AI has no transistor count listed.

The core composition also differs. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a 12-core part with 24 threads, likely using a hybrid arrangement given its Zen 5 / Zen 5c generation label. The EPYC 4344P is a straightforward 8-core, 16-thread Zen 4 design. This explains the Ryzen AI's advantage in certain multi-threaded tests despite the EPYC's higher clocks. The EPYC's larger L3 cache and higher base/boost clocks are typical of a server-oriented design optimized for sustained throughput, while the Ryzen AI's smaller cache and lower TDP reflect its mobile focus.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4344P is the clear winner for single-threaded performance. Its 50.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 26% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core make it the obvious choice for any application that runs primarily on one or two cores. It also wins in data encryption (15% lead), extended instructions (1.1% lead), find prime numbers (26.1% lead), physics (8.5% lead), and random string sorting (9.1% lead). The EPYC also takes Cinebench R23 multi-core by 23.8%, making it the pick for modern rendering workloads that scale across cores.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins in a different set of scenarios. Its 15.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core suggests it is better suited for legacy multi-threaded applications. It dominates in PassMark integer math (15.1% lead) and floating-point math (18.7% lead), making it the stronger choice for computational workloads that rely heavily on mathematical operations. It also wins in data compression (0.6% lead) and PassMark single-thread (9.7% lead), the latter being a notable counterpoint to the EPYC's Cinebench single-core dominance.

For users building a system around a specific task, the choice is clear. The EPYC 4344P is for those who need maximum per-core speed, ECC memory support, and server-grade reliability. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is for workloads that leverage its 12-core configuration and excel at math-heavy processing. Given the EPYC's 9 wins versus the Ryzen AI's 6 wins, and its substantial margins in the most common single-core and modern multi-core tests, the EPYC holds the edge for most general-purpose and server workloads. The Ryzen AI is the specialist, winning where its core count and math capabilities can shine.