AMD EPYC 4364P vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 and AMD EPYC 4364P are both 89th-percentile CPUs, but they achieve that status through completely different designs. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is a 12-core mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, while the EPYC 4364P is an 8-core server chip with a 105 W TDP. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—46030 for the mobile part versus 45970 for the server part—yet the head-to-head results show a clear split: the EPYC wins 9 of 15 tests, while the Ryzen AI wins 6. This makes the choice less about raw capability and more about matching the right silicon to the right workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen AI part uses a 12-core configuration, giving it a 50% advantage in thread count over the EPYC's 16 threads.

Q: How do their single-core performances compare?

A: The EPYC 4364P is significantly faster in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4177 versus the Ryzen AI's 1988, a 52.4% lead. The EPYC also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 28.3% (420 vs 301). However, the Ryzen AI counters in PassMark single-thread, scoring 3867 versus 3619, a 6.9% advantage.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P has a higher boost clock at 5.40 GHz, compared to the Ryzen AI 9 HX 375's 5.10 GHz. The EPYC also has a much higher base clock of 4.50 GHz versus 2.00 GHz on the mobile chip.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 4364P supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 does not. This is a key differentiator for server and workstation reliability use cases.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 is built on a 4 nm process, while the EPYC 4364P uses a 5 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the Ryzen AI's smaller node contributes to its dramatically lower 28 W TDP versus the EPYC's 105 W.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has an average benchmark score of 46030, which is 0.1% higher than the EPYC 4364P's 45970. In the nearest rivals list, the EPYC 4364P shows a deltaPct of -0.1 relative to the Ryzen AI, indicating the mobile chip holds a marginal overall edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD families with distinct design goals. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 uses the Zen 5 architecture in the Strix Point codename, part of the Ryzen AI 300 generation that combines Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. It is built on a 4 nm TSMC process and has a die size of 233 mm². The EPYC 4364P uses the older Zen 4 architecture in the Raphael codename, part of the EPYC 4004 series, and is built on a 5 nm TSMC process with a smaller 71 mm² die and 6,570 million transistors.

Cache layouts differ notably. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC 4364P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but doubles the L3 to 32 MB shared. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC's larger L3 pool benefits workloads with high data reuse.

The memory and PCIe capabilities also diverge. The Ryzen AI supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC supports only DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. The EPYC provides Gen 5 PCIe with 28 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Ryzen AI is limited to Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Ryzen AI featuring the Radeon 890M and the EPYC featuring a basic Radeon Graphics solution.

The Verdict

The data points to a workload-specific verdict. The EPYC 4364P is the pick for users prioritizing raw single-core speed and server-grade features. It dominates in Cinebench R23 single-core (4177 vs 1988), Cinebench R15 single-core (420 vs 301), and offers ECC memory support, a 32 MB L3 cache, and Gen 5 PCIe. This makes it the better choice for lightly-threaded applications and reliable server workloads.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins where power efficiency and mobile form factor matter. Its 28 W TDP versus the EPYC's 105 W is a massive gap, and it still manages to win PassMark single-thread (3867 vs 3619) and floating-point math (75153 vs 66946). For a laptop or compact system where thermals are constrained, the Ryzen AI is the obvious pick despite its lower Cinebench scores.

If you need maximum multi-core throughput in Cinebench R23, the EPYC wins decisively at 29589 versus 21812. But the Ryzen AI takes Cinebench R15 multicore at 3334 versus 2982. Neither chip is a universal winner, so the choice hinges on whether you value the EPYC's server features or the Ryzen AI's efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across several key specification fields. The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the Ryzen AI and 4.50 GHz for the EPYC, with boost clocks of 5.10 GHz and 5.40 GHz respectively. The TDP is dramatically different: 28 W for the mobile chip versus 105 W for the server chip.

The sockets are incompatible, with the Ryzen AI using AMD Socket FP8 and the EPYC using AMD Socket AM5. The process nodes are 4 nm (Ryzen AI) and 5 nm (EPYC), with die sizes of 233 mm² and 71 mm². The EPYC has a stated transistor count of 6,570 million, while the Ryzen AI has no listed transistor count.

Memory support differs, with the Ryzen AI supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X, and the EPYC supporting only DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s for the Ryzen AI and 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC. ECC memory is supported only on the EPYC. PCIe capabilities are also different: the Ryzen AI offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The integrated graphics are Radeon 890M on the Ryzen AI and Radeon Graphics on the EPYC. The release dates are June 30, 2024 for the Ryzen AI and May 20, 2024 for the EPYC.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4364P's biggest win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 4177 against the Ryzen AI's 1988, a 52.4% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head list. The EPYC also dominates Cinebench R23 multicore with a 26.3% lead (29589 vs 21812), and Cinebench R15 single-core with a 28.3% lead (420 vs 301). In PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC wins by 31.1% (177 vs 122), and it also takes data encryption by 13.9% (24174 vs 20802).

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 fights back in several tests. Its best result is PassMark integer math, where it scores 121754 versus the EPYC's 107775, a 13% win. It also wins PassMark floating-point math by 12.3% (75153 vs 66946) and Cinebench R15 multicore by 11.8% (3334 vs 2982). In PassMark single-thread, the Ryzen AI wins by 6.9% (3867 vs 3619), and it narrowly takes PassMark physics by 1.9% (1819 vs 1785).

The closest contest is PassMark data compression, where the EPYC wins by just 0.8% (408220 vs 404918). PassMark multithread also favors the EPYC, but by only 2.9% (33883 vs 32916). The EPYC extends its lead in random string sorting by 7.8% (48344 vs 44552) and extended instructions by 7.4% (31605 vs 29269).

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4364P wins in scenarios that reward high clock speeds and server-oriented features. Its 52.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the clear choice for lightly-threaded applications like older games or single-threaded productivity tools. The 26.3% multicore lead in the same benchmark suggests it handles heavily threaded rendering workloads better, despite having fewer cores. Its wins in data encryption (13.9%), find prime numbers (31.1%), and random string sorting (7.8%) point to strengths in security, cryptography, and data manipulation tasks. The ECC memory support and Gen 5 PCIe further cement its position for server and workstation deployments.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 wins where its higher core count and efficiency pay off. Its 13% lead in integer math and 12.3% lead in floating-point math indicate strong general arithmetic performance, useful in scientific computing and financial modeling. The 11.8% win in Cinebench R15 multicore shows it can outperform the EPYC in certain older multi-threaded benchmarks. Its PassMark single-thread victory (6.9%) is notable because it beats the EPYC in a single-core test despite the EPYC's higher clocks. The 1.9% win in physics and the massive TDP advantage (28 W vs 105 W) make it the better option for mobile workstations, compact desktops, and any build where power consumption and heat output are primary concerns.