AMD EPYC 4364P vs AMD Ryzen 9 3900X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the AMD Ryzen 9 3900X wins 5 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 4364P dominates with 10 wins. However, the margin of victory in each direction tells a more nuanced story.

The EPYC 4364P's single-core advantage is staggering. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 420 versus the 3900X's 207, a 50.7% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows an even larger gap: 4177 versus 1370, a 67.2% lead. PassMark single-thread results confirm the trend, with the EPYC scoring 3619 against 2703, a 25.3% advantage. These are not marginal differences; they represent entirely different performance classes in single-threaded workloads.

Multi-core results are more divided. The 3900X wins Cinebench R15 multicore narrowly, 3049 to 2982, a 2.2% margin. But the EPYC 4364P strikes back decisively in Cinebench R23 multicore, scoring 29589 versus 19000, a 35.8% lead. This reversal suggests that the newer architecture scales better under sustained multi-threaded load despite having fewer cores.

In PassMark workloads, the 3900X shows strength in specific areas. Data compression favors it by 10% (448906 versus 408220), data encryption by 18.3% (28586 versus 24174), and prime number finding by 20.9% (214 versus 177). Physics performance is virtually tied, with the 3900X ahead by just 0.5% (1794 versus 1785). The EPYC 4364P counters with wins in extended instructions (31605 versus 29221, a 7.5% edge), floating-point math (66946 versus 58434, a 12.7% lead), and integer math (107775 versus 99628, a 7.6% margin). The PassMark multithread score slightly favors the EPYC at 33883 versus 32544, a 4% difference, while random string sorting is nearly identical at 48344 versus 48300, a 0.1% gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, spanning multiple generations. The Ryzen 9 3900X uses the Zen 2 architecture (codename Matisse) built on TSMC's 7 nm process, while the EPYC 4364P employs Zen 4 (codename Raphael) on a 5 nm node. This process shrink contributes to the EPYC's higher clock speeds: it boosts to 5.40 GHz versus the 3900X's 4.60 GHz, with base clocks of 4.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz respectively.

Core counts differ significantly. The 3900X packs 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC compensates with a larger L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 512 KB), though the 3900X holds the L3 advantage at 64 MB total versus 32 MB shared. Both share the same L1 cache size of 64 KB per core. The 3900X uses a dual-chiplet design with a die size of 2x 74 mm² and 7,600 million transistors, whereas the EPYC is a single 71 mm² die with 6,570 million transistors.

Memory support marks another major divergence. The 3900X supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the EPYC 4364P supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the 3900X. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the 3900X offers Gen 4 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The EPYC includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 3900X has no integrated graphics.

Socket compatibility reinforces the generational split: the 3900X uses AMD Socket AM4, while the EPYC 4364P uses AMD Socket AM5. The EPYC also has a locked multiplier, whereas the 3900X is multiplier-unlocked. The 3900X is categorized as a Desktop processor from the 3000 series, while the EPYC 4364P belongs to the EPYC 4004 series and targets the Server/Workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 9 3900X carves out its niche in specific data-heavy workloads. Its 18.3% advantage in data encryption and 10% lead in data compression suggest strong performance in file archiving and cryptographic tasks. The 20.9% edge in prime number finding indicates efficiency in mathematical iteration workloads. Its physical simulation score edges out the EPYC by 0.5%, making it marginally better for physics calculations. These wins, while fewer, are meaningful for users whose workflows center on these specific operations.

The EPYC 4364P asserts dominance in general-purpose and high-frequency workloads. The massive single-core leads (50.7% in Cinebench R15, 67.2% in R23) make it the clear choice for lightly threaded applications where clock speed drives performance. Its 35.8% advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore shows that even with fewer cores, the newer architecture sustains higher multi-threaded throughput. Floating-point math (12.7% ahead), integer math (7.6% ahead), and extended instructions (7.5% ahead) all favor the EPYC, indicating broader computational superiority. The PassMark multithread score adds 4% to its total, and single-thread performance is 25.3% higher.

For workloads requiring ECC memory, the EPYC 4364P is the only viable option, as the 3900X lacks this feature. The EPYC's integrated graphics also provide a display output capability that the 3900X does not offer, which could simplify system builds that skip discrete GPUs. The EPYC's DDR5 memory support and higher bandwidth (83.2 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s) further enhance memory-bound operations. The 3900X, however, retains the advantage in total L3 cache (64 MB versus 32 MB), which may benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P is substantially faster in single-core tasks. It scores 420 versus 207 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 4177 versus 1370 in Cinebench R23 single-core, and 3619 versus 2703 in PassMark single-thread, representing leads of 50.7%, 67.2%, and 25.3% respectively.

Q: Does the Ryzen 9 3900X win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins 5 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons. It leads in Cinebench R15 multicore by 2.2%, data compression by 10%, data encryption by 18.3%, prime number finding by 20.9%, and physics by 0.5%.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 9 3900X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite fewer cores, the EPYC wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 35.8%.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Ryzen 9 3900X supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 4364P supports DDR5 with dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Only the EPYC supports ECC memory.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The EPYC 4364P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen 9 3900X has no integrated graphics. This means the EPYC can provide display output without a separate GPU.

Q: What are the socket requirements?

A: The Ryzen 9 3900X uses AMD Socket AM4, while the EPYC 4364P uses AMD Socket AM5. These sockets are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 4364P as the stronger overall processor in most benchmark scenarios. It wins 10 of 15 head-to-head tests, including all single-core comparisons and the more demanding Cinebench R23 multicore test. Its 67.2% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 35.8% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore are decisive. The EPYC also brings modern platform features: DDR5 memory, ECC support, PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes, and integrated graphics. For users prioritizing raw performance, especially in single-threaded or mixed workloads, the EPYC 4364P is the data-backed choice.

The Ryzen 9 3900X remains relevant for specific use cases. Its wins in data compression, encryption, and prime number finding indicate strength in specialized computational tasks. The 12-core config provides more threads than the EPYC's 8 cores, and its 64 MB L3 cache doubles the EPYC's 32 MB. Its multiplier-unlocked design appeals to overclocking enthusiasts, and its AM4 socket may suit existing platform upgrades. For workloads that match its strengths—particularly data-heavy operations—the 3900X delivers competitive results, as shown by its 2.2% win in Cinebench R15 multicore.

The overall average benchmark scores are close: the 3900X averages 46487, while the EPYC averages 45970, a difference of roughly 1%. Both sit at the 89th percentile among all CPUs. The 3900X's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon w3-2535 (0.4% higher) and AMD Ryzen 9 7845HX (0.4% higher), while the EPYC's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7303 (0% difference) and Intel Core i7-14700HX (0% difference). This parity in average scores underscores that the choice depends heavily on workload. The EPYC 4364P is the better all-round performer; the 3900X is the specialist for encryption, compression, and prime number tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 9 3900X | AMD EPYC 4364P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM4 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Matisse | Raphael |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 7,600 million | 6,570 million |

| Die Size | 2x 74 mm² | 71 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 24 Lanes | Gen 5, 28 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2019-07-06 | 2024-05-20 |

| Launch MSRP | $499 | $399 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |