AMD EPYC 4364P vs AMD EPYC 7303 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4364P and AMD EPYC 7303 are two server processors that, despite landing on the same overall performance tier, achieve their results through fundamentally different designs. The aggregate data places them nearly dead even—the EPYC 4364P averages a benchmark score of 45,970 against the EPYC 7303’s 45,960, a delta of 0%. Both sit at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. However, a look at individual workloads reveals a stark split: the 4364P wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the 7303 takes 5. The story is not about who is faster overall, but about which type of speed matters more for a given task.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the comparison is in single-threaded performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the EPYC 4364P scores 3,619 against the EPYC 7303’s 1,460. That is a delta of 147.9%—the 4364P is nearly two and a half times faster in this specific metric. This dominance carries through every Cinebench single-core test: the 4364P leads by 21.7% in Cinebench R15 (420 vs 345), 21.8% in R23 (4,177 vs 3,428), and 21.9% in R20 (1,754 vs 1,439). The pattern is consistent and decisive.

The multi-core results tell a different but equally clear story. The 4364P holds a 21.8% advantage in Cinebench R15 (2,982 vs 2,448), R20 (12,427 vs 10,200), and R23 (29,589 vs 24,286). In PassMark multithread, the lead is 18.6% (33,883 vs 28,572). These are substantial margins, but they are not universal. The 7303 fights back in several PassMark sub-tests. It wins data compression (428,319 vs 408,220, a 4.7% edge), data encryption (25,167 vs 24,174, a 3.9% edge), integer math (113,422 vs 107,775, a 5% edge), and find prime numbers (180 vs 177, a 1.7% edge). The 7303 also takes physics, but by a negligible 0.4% (1,792 vs 1,785).

The remaining tests are closer to a draw. In floating-point math, the 4364P wins by 3.1% (66,946 vs 64,940). In random string sorting, it wins by 14.4% (48,344 vs 42,259). In extended instructions, the two are functionally identical: 31,605 vs 31,603, a 0% delta. The overall picture is that the 4364P dominates in rendering and general single-threaded workloads, while the 7303 holds advantages in specific data-processing routines.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4364P is the clear choice for workloads that are latency-sensitive or rely on high clock speeds. Its wins in all Cinebench tests and in PassMark multithread point to strength in rendering, 3D modeling, and other tasks that scale with per-core efficiency. The 147.9% lead in single-thread performance is not a marginal edge; it is a category difference. For applications that cannot fully utilize many cores, the 4364P will finish tasks in a fraction of the time. The 14.4% win in random string sorting also suggests an advantage in parsing and text-heavy operations.

The EPYC 7303, conversely, wins in several throughput-oriented tasks. Data compression and encryption are classic server workloads, and the 7303 leads by 4.7% and 3.9%, respectively. Integer math is another win, at 5% (113,422 vs 107,775). These are the kinds of operations that benefit from more physical cores and higher memory bandwidth. The 7303 also edges out the 4364P in find prime numbers and physics, though those margins (1.7% and 0.4%) are within noise. The data suggests the 7303 is better suited for database-style operations, compression pipelines, and cryptographic work where raw core count and memory throughput matter more than single-thread speed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different manufacturing processes. The EPYC 4364P is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC 7303 uses Zen 3 with the Milan codename, on a 7 nm process, also from TSMC. This process difference is a major factor in the clock speed disparity: the 4364P has a base clock of 4.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the 7303 sits at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost.

The core counts are inverted relative to what one might expect from the clock speeds. The 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 7303 has 16 cores and 32 threads. This means the 7303 has double the physical cores but a much lower clock speed. The transistor counts reflect the different designs: the 4364P has 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die, while the 7303 has 8,300 million transistors across two 81 mm² dies. The 7303’s cache layout is also different—it has 512 KB of L2 per core versus 1 MB per core on the 4364P, but it compensates with 64 MB of shared L3 versus 32 MB on the 4364P.

The memory subsystems are entirely different generations. The 4364P supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus, yielding 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The 7303 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s. This is a critical architectural difference: the 7303 has over twice the memory bandwidth, which explains its wins in data-heavy tasks like compression and encryption. The 4364P’s higher clocks and newer architecture give it the single-thread edge, but the 7303’s memory bandwidth and extra cores give it the throughput advantage in specific workloads.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs diverge on nearly every major specification. The 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the 7303 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are 4.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 5.40 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. The 4364P has a TDP of 105 watts, while the 7303 is rated at 130 watts. Socket types differ: the 4364P uses AMD Socket AM5, while the 7303 uses AMD Socket SP3.

Memory support is a clean split: the 4364P uses DDR5 on a dual-channel bus, the 7303 uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus. Memory bandwidth is 83.2 GB/s for the 4364P and 204.8 GB/s for the 7303. PCIe support also differs: the 4364P offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes, while the 7303 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The 4364P has integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 7303 has no integrated graphics. The 4364P was released on 2024-05-20, while the 7303 was released on 2023-09-04. Both have ECC memory support and both have locked multipliers. The 4364P’s launch MSRP is $399; the 7303’s is $604.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 3,619 versus 1,460 for the EPYC 7303, a delta of 147.9%. It also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core by 21.8% (4,177 vs 3,428).

Q: Does the EPYC 7303 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. It wins 5 of the 17 head-to-head tests. The largest wins are in PassMark data compression (428,319 vs 408,220, a 4.7% edge) and integer math (113,422 vs 107,775, a 5% edge).

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7303 has 16 cores and 32 threads, double the EPYC 4364P’s 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7303 has 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth over an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The EPYC 4364P has 83.2 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: Which processor uses a newer manufacturing process?

A: The EPYC 4364P uses a 5 nm process, while the EPYC 7303 uses a 7 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

Q: Are the two CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes. Both are at the 89th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 45,970 for the 4364P and 45,960 for the 7303, a 0% delta.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear, if counterintuitive, conclusion: the 8-core EPYC 4364P is the faster processor in the majority of tests, despite having half the core count of the 16-core EPYC 7303. The 4364P wins 12 of 17 benchmarks, and its wins are substantial—21.8% in Cinebench multicore, 18.6% in PassMark multithread, and 147.9% in single-thread. The 7303’s wins are narrower, ranging from 0.4% to 5%. For anyone running general-purpose server workloads, rendering, or single-threaded applications, the 4364P is the better performer.

The EPYC 7303 is not without merit. Its wins in data compression, encryption, and integer math are meaningful for specific use cases, and its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is a major asset for memory-bound tasks. The extra 8 cores and 32 threads also make it a better fit for highly parallel workloads that saturate all available cores. However, the benchmark data shows that the 4364P’s higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the core deficit in most scenarios. The 7303 is the pick for specialized data-processing pipelines; the 4364P is the pick for everything else. Given the 7303’s higher launch MSRP of $604 versus $399, the 4364P also carries a lower launch MSRP, though the performance differences are what the data highlights.