AMD EPYC 4345P vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4345P and the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 are two very different processors from the same manufacturer, separated by three years and a platform change. The EPYC 4345P is a server/workstation part built on Zen 5, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 is a desktop chip based on Zen 3. Despite the Ryzen having 50% more cores, the database shows the EPYC winning 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. This analysis examines the recorded data to see where each processor excels and what that means for potential buyers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P boosts to 5.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 boosts to 4.70 GHz.

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4345P has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which supports faster memory?

A: The EPYC 4345P supports DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, whereas the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 uses DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Do both have integrated graphics?

A: No. The EPYC 4345P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The EPYC 4345P averages 48,470 across the database, and the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 averages 47,527, a difference of about 2%.

Q: Which has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 4345P has 32 MB shared.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the AMD EPYC 4345P. It wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and the majority of Passmark workloads. Its single-thread advantage is substantial, with a 26% lead in Passmark single-thread (4408 vs 3499) and a 9% lead across all Cinebench single-core tests. The EPYC also dominates in physics simulation, scoring 45.8% higher (2583 vs 1772), and in extended instructions, where it is 17.1% ahead (31663 vs 27031). Even in multithreaded performance, where the Ryzen’s 12 cores should give it an edge, the EPYC leads by 4.6% (36123 vs 34549). The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 wins only three benchmarks: data encryption (26313 vs 23313, an 11.4% advantage), find prime numbers (228 vs 167, a 26.8% advantage), and integer math (129768 vs 123774, a 4.6% advantage). For users who prioritize single-thread speed, physics simulation, or modern instruction sets, the EPYC is the obvious choice. For workloads that are heavily integer-based or encryption-heavy, the Ryzen holds a niche but real advantage. The EPYC also brings a newer platform (AM5, DDR5, PCIe Gen 5) and a launch MSRP of $329. The Ryzen, with no recorded launch MSRP, is a desktop part from 2022. The benchmark results indicate that the EPYC’s newer architecture and higher clocks outweigh the Ryzen’s extra cores in most scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the EPYC is in Passmark physics, where it scores 2583 against the Ryzen’s 1772, a 45.8% margin. This is a massive gap and suggests the EPYC’s Zen 5 cores handle physics calculations far more efficiently. The next largest EPYC win is in Passmark single-thread, where it leads by 26% (4408 vs 3499). This single-thread advantage is consistent across all Cinebench versions: R15 single-core 455 vs 417 (9.1%), R20 single-core 1898 vs 1740 (9.1%), and R23 single-core 4520 vs 4145 (9%). The EPYC also wins extended instructions by 17.1% (31663 vs 27031), which indicates better support for advanced instruction sets. In multithreaded Cinebench tests, the EPYC leads by 9% in R15 (3227 vs 2959), 9% in R20 (13448 vs 12333), and 9% in R23 (32020 vs 29366). Passmark multithread shows a smaller EPYC lead of 4.6% (36123 vs 34549). The EPYC also wins data compression (421490 vs 416599, 1.2%), floating point math (74255 vs 70291, 5.6%), and random string sorting (46238 vs 43447, 6.4%). The Ryzen’s wins are narrower in two cases: integer math (129768 vs 123774, 4.6%) and data encryption (26313 vs 23313, 11.4%). Its largest win is in find prime numbers, where it scores 228 vs 167, a 26.8% advantage. These three wins are specific to workloads that rely on integer arithmetic and cryptographic operations, where the Ryzen’s larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 32 MB) and higher core count may play a role.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The EPYC 4345P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 3.80 GHz for the EPYC and 3.00 GHz for the Ryzen; boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 4.70 GHz, respectively. The EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Ryzen uses AM4. The EPYC is built on a 4 nm process, the Ryzen on 7 nm. Transistor counts are nearly identical (8,315 million vs 8,300 million), but the die size differs: the EPYC has a single 70.6 mm² die, while the Ryzen uses two 74 mm² dies. Cache layouts differ: the EPYC has 80 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, while the Ryzen has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core. L3 cache is 32 MB shared on the EPYC and 64 MB on the Ryzen. Memory support is DDR5 for the EPYC (89.6 GB/s) and DDR4 for the Ryzen (51.2 GB/s). PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 24 lanes on the EPYC, Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Ryzen. The EPYC includes Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen has no integrated graphics. Market segments differ: the EPYC is server/workstation, the Ryzen is desktop. Release dates are 2025-05-12 for the EPYC and 2022-04-03 for the Ryzen. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $329; the Ryzen has no recorded launch MSRP. Both have a TDP of 65 W, support ECC memory, use dual-channel memory, are not multiplier-unlocked, and are active in production.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is the core of the performance difference. The EPYC 4345P uses Zen 5 (codename Grado) on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 uses Zen 3 (codename Vermeer) on a 7 nm TSMC process. The smaller process node allows the EPYC to reach higher clocks (5.50 GHz boost vs 4.70 GHz) while maintaining the same 65 W TDP. The EPYC’s per-core cache is larger: 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, compared to 64 KB and 512 KB on the Ryzen. However, the Ryzen has a larger L3 cache (64 MB vs 32 MB), which may explain its wins in integer-heavy and encryption tasks. The EPYC supports DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, more than 75% higher than the Ryzen’s DDR4 bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes, while the Ryzen has Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The EPYC includes an integrated Radeon GPU, which the Ryzen lacks. The Ryzen’s dual-die design (2x 74 mm²) contrasts with the EPYC’s single 70.6 mm² die. These architectural differences align with the benchmark results: the EPYC’s newer process and higher clocks drive its single-thread and physics wins, while the Ryzen’s larger L3 and extra cores give it an edge in specific integer and encryption workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4345P wins in all Cinebench tests (single and multi-core), Passmark data compression, extended instructions, floating point math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, and single-thread. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely on single-thread performance, such as many legacy or lightly threaded workloads, as well as for physics simulation, where its 45.8% lead is decisive. The EPYC also excels in tasks that use advanced instruction sets, as shown by its 17.1% advantage in extended instructions. For general multithreaded work, the EPYC’s 4.6% lead in Passmark multithread and 9% lead in Cinebench multi-core means it can handle parallel workloads effectively despite having fewer cores. The Ryzen 9 PRO 5945 wins in data encryption (11.4% higher), find prime numbers (26.8% higher), and integer math (4.6% higher). These are narrow but consistent wins, suggesting the Ryzen is better suited for cryptographic operations, prime number generation, and integer-heavy calculations. The Ryzen’s larger L3 cache and higher core count likely contribute to these results. For users whose workloads are dominated by encryption or integer arithmetic, the Ryzen offers a measurable advantage. For everything else, the EPYC is the stronger performer according to the recorded data.