AMD EPYC 4345P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of two very different design priorities. The AMD EPYC 4345P dominates the head-to-head comparison, winning 14 of the 15 recorded tests. Its victories span the entire workload spectrum, from single-threaded integer tasks to heavily multithreaded render workloads. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 388 manages only a single win, but that win is revealing: it comes in the PassMark extended instructions test, where the mobile chip scores 32,719 against the EPYC's 31,663, a 3.3% margin. This suggests the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has a specialized instruction-handling advantage, likely tied to its AI-oriented feature set, even though the EPYC is faster in nearly every other measurable category.

The EPYC 4345P's largest margins come in the Cinebench suite, which is heavily weighted toward sustained multi-core and single-core performance. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 32,020 versus the Ryzen's 18,759, a staggering 41.4% lead. Single-core R23 shows an even wider gap: 4,520 versus 1,960, a 56.6% difference. These are not incremental gains; they represent a fundamental performance tier separation. The EPYC also wins all PassMark math and memory-oriented tests, including integer math (123,774 versus 109,588, an 11.5% lead), floating-point math (74,255 versus 72,722, a 2.1% lead), and data encryption (23,313 versus 20,092, a 13.8% lead).

However, the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is not without its own domain. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, enabled by quad-channel LPDDR5X, is nearly three times the EPYC's 89.6 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 bandwidth. This explains why the Ryzen wins the extended instructions test: workloads that leverage wide data paths and specialized vector operations can extract more throughput from the mobile chip's memory subsystem. The Ryzen also carries a Radeon 8060S integrated GPU, versus the EPYC's generic Radeon Graphics, making it the more capable platform for graphics-adjacent tasks, though no GPU benchmarks are recorded in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational Zen 5 architecture and are built on TSMC's 4 nm process node. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses the Strix Halo codename, while the EPYC 4345P uses Grado. Both have 8 cores and 16 threads, and both feature identical cache hierarchies: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Neither has 3D V-Cache. The die sizes differ notably: the Ryzen uses a dual-die configuration with 2x 70.6 mm², while the EPYC uses a single 70.6 mm² die, with the EPYC's transistor count listed at 8,315 million.

The sockets are entirely different, which dictates platform compatibility. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 mounts in AMD Socket FP11, a mobile platform, while the EPYC 4345P uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop/server socket. This aligns with their market segments: the Ryzen is classified as Mobile, the EPYC as Server/Workstation. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 4005 series, while the Ryzen has no series designation.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Ryzen uses LPDDR5X over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, delivering 89.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a mobile chip and speaks to the Ryzen's workstation ambitions. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Ryzen offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's newer PCIe standard and higher lane count make it the better choice for expansion-heavy server workloads.

Clock speeds favor the EPYC. Its base clock is 3.80 GHz and boost clock is 5.50 GHz, versus the Ryzen's 3.60 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The EPYC also has a higher TDP at 65 watts versus 55 watts, which contributes to its sustained performance headroom. The Ryzen was released on 2026-01-05, while the EPYC was released earlier on 2025-05-12. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P wins every single-threaded benchmark in the database. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 4,520 versus the Ryzen AI Max+ 388's 1,960, a 56.6% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, it leads 4,408 versus 4,185, a 5.1% margin.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 competitive in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Not against the EPYC 4345P. The EPYC leads Cinebench R23 multi-core by 41.4% (32,020 versus 18,759) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 11% (3,227 versus 2,872). The EPYC also wins PassMark multithread by 7.3% (36,123 versus 33,486).

Q: Where does the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 actually beat the EPYC?

A: The Ryzen wins only one recorded test: PassMark extended instructions, scoring 32,719 versus 31,663, a 3.3% lead. This likely reflects its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and specialized instruction handling, which can accelerate certain vectorized workloads.

Q: What are the key platform differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses Socket FP11, LPDDR5X memory, and PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The EPYC 4345P uses Socket AM5, DDR5 memory, and PCIe Gen 5 with 24 lanes. The EPYC also has a higher base clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.60 GHz) and boost clock (5.50 GHz versus 5.00 GHz).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 and the EPYC 4345P have ECC memory support listed in the database, which is notable for the mobile-class Ryzen part.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has an average benchmark score of 49,796, while the EPYC 4345P has an average of 48,470. Both sit at the 90th percentile among all CPUs, but the Ryzen's average is pulled up by its strong performance in the single test it wins.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based solely on the recorded data:

• Base Clock: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 3.60 GHz, EPYC 4345P at 3.80 GHz
• Boost Clock: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 5.00 GHz, EPYC 4345P at 5.50 GHz
• TDP: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 55 W, EPYC 4345P at 65 W
• Socket: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 on AMD Socket FP11, EPYC 4345P on AMD Socket AM5
• Codename: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is Strix Halo, EPYC 4345P is Grado
• Generation: Ryzen AI Max (Zen 5 Strix Halo), EPYC (Zen 5 Grado)
• Transistors: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 not listed, EPYC 4345P at 8,315 million
• Die Size: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 2x 70.6 mm², EPYC 4345P at 70.6 mm²
• Memory Support: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 uses LPDDR5X, EPYC 4345P uses DDR5
• Memory Bus: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is quad-channel, EPYC 4345P is dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 at 256.0 GB/s, EPYC 4345P at 89.6 GB/s
• PCIe: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is Gen 4 with 16 lanes, EPYC 4345P is Gen 5 with 24 lanes
• Integrated Graphics: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has Radeon 8060S, EPYC 4345P has Radeon Graphics
• Market Segment: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is Mobile, EPYC 4345P is Server/Workstation
• Release Date: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 on 2026-01-05, EPYC 4345P on 2025-05-12
• Launch MSRP: EPYC 4345P listed at $329, Ryzen AI Max+ 388 has no listed MSRP
• Part Number: Ryzen AI Max+ 388 is 100-000001980, EPYC 4345P is 100-000001556

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4345P asserts its dominance early in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3,227 against the Ryzen's 2,872, an 11% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a much larger gap: 455 versus 298, a 34.5% difference. Moving to the more demanding R23 workload, the EPYC's multi-core score of 32,020 crushes the Ryzen's 18,759 by 41.4%. The single-core R23 test is even more lopsided: 4,520 versus 1,960, a 56.6% deficit for the Ryzen. These results indicate that the EPYC's higher clocks and 65 W TDP translate directly into superior per-thread and sustained all-core performance.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture, though the EPYC still wins the majority of tests. In PassMark multithread, the EPYC scores 36,123 versus 33,486, a 7.3% lead. Integer math favors the EPYC by 11.5% (123,774 versus 109,588), and floating-point math by a narrower 2.1% (74,255 versus 72,722). Data compression shows a 4.9% EPYC edge (421,490 versus 400,887), while data encryption sees a 13.8% lead (23,313 versus 20,092). The EPYC also wins random string sorting by 6.6% (46,238 versus 43,196) and the find prime numbers test by 13.2% (167 versus 145). In the physics test, the EPYC leads by a substantial 28.6% (2,583 versus 1,843).

The single-threaded PassMark results show a smaller but consistent EPYC advantage: 4,408 versus 4,185, a 5.1% lead in both the single-thread and singlethread entries, which record identical scores. This narrower gap, compared to the Cinebench single-core tests, suggests that PassMark's single-thread workload is less sensitive to the clock speed differential.

The lone Ryzen victory comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 32,719 versus 31,663, a 3.3% margin. This is the only recorded test where the Ryzen AI Max+ 388 outperforms the EPYC 4345P. Given that the Ryzen's memory bandwidth is 256.0 GB/s versus the EPYC's 89.6 GB/s, this result aligns with the expectation that wide-memory, instruction-dense workloads can benefit from the mobile chip's architecture. However, this single win does little to offset the EPYC's overwhelming lead across every other benchmark category.

Overall, the head-to-head record stands at 14 wins for the EPYC 4345P and 1 win for the Ryzen AI Max+ 388. The EPYC's victories range from modest 2.1% margins in floating-point math to decisive 56.6% leads in Cinebench R23 single-core. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, sustained multi-core performance, or single-thread responsiveness, the data unambiguously favors the EPYC 4345P. The Ryzen AI Max+ 388's appeal rests on its specialized instruction-handling capability and its significantly higher memory bandwidth, which may matter for specific niche workloads.