AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H Comparison

AMD EPYC 4345P vs Intel Core Ultra X9 378H: a 65-watt server processor built on AMD's Zen 5 architecture against a 25-watt mobile chip from Intel's Panther Lake family. The database shows a close overall race, with the EPYC 4345P holding a 90th percentile ranking versus the Core Ultra X9's 89th, and an average benchmark score of 48470 against 47468. The head-to-head record, however, is lopsided: Intel wins 13 of 17 tests, while AMD takes four decisive victories. This is a comparison of two very different design philosophies, one optimized for memory bandwidth and integer throughput, the other for floating-point and cryptographic workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4345P is the clear choice for integer-heavy and data-streaming tasks. Its most dominant victory comes in Passmark integer math, where it scores 123774 against Intel's 92603, a 33.7% advantage. It also leads in data compression, scoring 421490 versus 386591, a 9% edge, and in random string sorting, where it posts 46238 against 44648, a 3.6% gain. The EPYC also edges out Intel in extended instructions, 31663 to 31315, a 1.1% margin. These results point to a processor that excels in database operations, file compression, and general-purpose server workloads where integer arithmetic and memory access patterns dominate.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H, by contrast, wins the majority of benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests and several Passmark subtests. Its biggest wins are in find prime numbers, where it scores 357 versus AMD's 167, a 53.2% lead, and floating-point math, where it posts 114500 against 74255, a 35.1% advantage. It also leads in data encryption, 29840 to 23313, a 21.9% gap, and physics, 3404 to 2583, a 24.1% margin. The Core Ultra X9's multithread score of 38298 beats the EPYC's 36123 by 5.7%, and its single-thread score of 4453 edges out the EPYC's 4408 by 1%. This processor is better suited for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload that relies heavily on floating-point operations or cryptographic algorithms.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design lineages. The AMD EPYC 4345P uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado, and is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The Core Ultra X9 378H, meanwhile, is built on Intel's 3 nm process, codenamed Panther Lake, and features 16 cores but only 16 threads, meaning it lacks Hyper-Threading. Its base clock is 2.00 GHz, boosting to 5.00 GHz. The EPYC's transistor count is listed at 8,315 million on a 70.6 mm² die, while Intel's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The EPYC allocates 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Intel's design uses a much larger 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB of L2 per core, but only 18 MB of shared L3. This larger per-core cache on the Intel side likely contributes to its floating-point and prime-number advantages, while AMD's larger L3 pool helps with data-heavy workloads. Memory support also diverges: the EPYC uses DDR5 with dual-channel bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Core Ultra X9 uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s, a 71% higher peak memory throughput. Intel also supports ECC memory, while AMD does not, a notable difference for server applications. PCIe lanes are another split: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, while Intel provides only 4 Gen 5 lanes, reflecting its mobile focus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent, if narrow, Intel edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 3281 against AMD's 3227, a 1.6% lead. Single-core R15 is similarly close, 462 to 455, a 1.5% margin. The pattern holds in R20, where Intel leads multi-core 13672 to 13448 and single-core 1929 to 1898, both by 1.6%. R23 continues the trend: Intel's multi-core score of 32553 beats AMD's 32020 by 1.6%, and single-core 4595 to 4520, also 1.6%. These results indicate that Intel has a slight architectural efficiency advantage in rendering and general processing, though the differences are small enough to be within run-to-run variance.

Passmark paints a more polarized picture. AMD's 33.7% lead in integer math is its largest win, followed by a 9% advantage in data compression and a 3.6% edge in random string sorting. Intel's counterattacks are more severe in percentage terms: a 53.2% win in find prime numbers, a 35.1% lead in floating-point math, and a 21.9% margin in data encryption. Intel also wins physics by 24.1% and multithread by 5.7%, while the single-thread score shows Intel ahead by 1%. The extended instructions test is the closest, with AMD winning by just 1.1%. Overall, Intel's wins are more numerous and often larger, but AMD's victories in integer-heavy tasks are substantial and could be decisive in specific server workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P has an average benchmark score of 48470, compared to the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H's 47468. This places the EPYC in the 90th percentile of all CPUs, while the Intel chip sits in the 89th.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 32553 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 1.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 4345P's 32020. This is Intel's smallest margin of victory in the Cinebench suite.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark find prime numbers, where the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H scores 357 against the AMD EPYC 4345P's 167, a 53.2% advantage for Intel. The second largest is AMD's 33.7% lead in Passmark integer math.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression tasks?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P wins Passmark data compression with a score of 421490, which is 9% higher than the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H's 386591. This is AMD's second-largest victory in the head-to-head tests.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4345P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H does not. This is a significant factor for workstation and server deployments that require error correction.

Q: What are the TDP ratings of these CPUs?

A: The AMD EPYC 4345P has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H has a TDP of 25 watts. The Intel chip uses substantially less power, reflecting its mobile design.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD EPYC 4345P uses 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 378H uses 16 cores and 16 threads, meaning the Intel chip has no simultaneous multithreading. Base clocks are 3.80 GHz for AMD and 2.00 GHz for Intel, while boost clocks are 5.50 GHz and 5.00 GHz, respectively. The process node differs: AMD uses 4 nm TSMC, Intel uses 3 nm Intel. The EPYC's die size is 70.6 mm² with 8,315 million transistors, whereas Intel's die size and transistor count are not recorded.

Cache layouts are distinct: AMD provides 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 shared, while Intel offers 192 KB L1 per core, 2.5 MB L2 per core, and 18 MB L3 shared. Memory support sees AMD using DDR5 with dual-channel 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel 153.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the AMD side. PCIe connectivity shows a major divergence: AMD offers Gen 5 with 24 CPU lanes, Intel only 4 Gen 5 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with AMD featuring Radeon Graphics and Intel featuring Arc B390.

The market segments are also different: AMD targets server and workstation, while Intel targets mobile. Socket types reflect this, with AMD using Socket AM5 and Intel using BGA 2540. Release dates are separated by nearly a year, with the EPYC launching on 2025-05-12 and the Core Ultra X9 on 2026-04-03. The AMD part has a launch MSRP of $329, while Intel's launch MSRP is not listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and the production status for both is active.