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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data splits these two AMD processors into two distinct personalities. The EPYC 4364P takes the majority of benchmark wins, 11 out of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 counterattacks in several important workload categories. The most consistent EPYC advantage appears in the Cinebench suite, where it wins all six tests by the same 3.6% margin. That includes the multi-core tests, where the EPYC scores 2982 in R15, 12427 in R20, and 29589 in R23. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 trails with 2875, 11982, and 28529 respectively. The single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the EPYC leading 420 to 405 in R15, 1754 to 1691 in R20, and 4177 to 4027 in R23.

The EPYC also shows a decisive edge in PassMark's data encryption workload, scoring 24174 against 21186 for the Ryzen, a 12.4% gap. Extended instructions go to the EPYC by 7.1%, with scores of 31605 versus 29351. Prime number finding is the largest EPYC win of all, 177 versus 125, a massive 29.4% advantage. Random string sorting also favors the EPYC, 48344 to 45358, a 6.2% difference. The multi-thread PassMark score is nearly a tie, with the EPYC at 33883 and the Ryzen at 33689, a margin of just 0.6%.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 wins the math-heavy PassMark workloads. Floating point math goes to the Ryzen by 11.5%, 74626 versus 66946. Integer math is another strong Ryzen win, 119521 versus 107775, a 10.9% advantage. Data compression also favors the Ryzen, 416331 versus 408220, a 2% edge. The Ryzen wins the PassMark single-thread test by 8.2%, 3914 versus 3619, which is interesting given that the EPYC has a higher boost clock. Physics simulation goes to the Ryzen as well, 1843 versus 1785, a 3.2% difference.

In the aggregate, the average benchmark scores are close. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 averages 47022, while the EPYC 4364P averages 45970. The Ryzen's nearest rival in the database is the AMD Ryzen 9 5900, with an average score of 46971, putting the Ryzen 0.1% ahead. It also sits 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-13700K and 0.3% below the Intel Core i9-12900F. The EPYC 4364P's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7303 at 45960, a 0% difference, with the Intel Core i7-14700HX also at 45953. Both chips sit at the 89th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so they land in the same overall performance tier despite their different strengths.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P wins every multi-core Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, with a 3.6% margin each time. Its R23 multi-core score is 29589 versus 28529 for the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 win any single-thread tests?

A: Yes, the Ryzen wins the PassMark single-thread test with 3914 versus 3619 for the EPYC, an 8.2% advantage. However, the EPYC wins all three Cinebench single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by 3.6% each.

Q: How do the two chips compare in PassMark multi-thread performance?

A: They are effectively tied. The EPYC 4364P scores 33883 and the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 33689, a difference of only 0.6% in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Which processor has the bigger lead in any single benchmark?

A: The EPYC 4364P's 29.4% advantage in PassMark find prime numbers is the largest delta in the head-to-head data, 177 versus 125. The Ryzen's largest win is 11.5% in floating point math.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 and the EPYC 4364P list ECC memory support in the database.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4364P boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 boosts to 5.10 GHz. Despite this, the Ryzen still wins the PassMark single-thread test.

The Verdict

The data points toward the EPYC 4364P for users who prioritize Cinebench rendering performance, encryption workloads, and instruction-heavy tasks. It wins all six Cinebench tests, data encryption by 12.4%, extended instructions by 7.1%, and prime number finding by 29.4%. It also wins the overall PassMark multi-thread score, albeit narrowly. The EPYC's 8-core, 16-thread configuration with a 4.50 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock evidently carries it through these workloads.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is the better pick for floating point math, integer math, data compression, and PassMark single-thread performance. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, and higher average benchmark score of 47022 versus 45970 suggest it is the more balanced overall processor in the database's aggregate metrics. The Ryzen also has the edge in physics simulation. Its 2.00 GHz base clock is far lower than the EPYC's, but the boost behavior and core count compensate in these specific tests.

For a builder deciding between the two, the choice comes down to workload type. The EPYC 4364P is the server and workstation part, and its benchmark profile reflects that. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is the mobile part, yet it still posts competitive aggregate numbers. Both sit at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, so neither is a weak option. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $399. The Ryzen has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core configurations. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The Ryzen has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC has a base clock of 4.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The EPYC's base clock is more than double the Ryzen's.

Thermal design power is another major split. The Ryzen carries a 28 W TDP, while the EPYC is rated at 105 W. The sockets are different as well: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5. Memory support and bandwidth differ too. The Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X with dual-channel memory and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities differ significantly. The Ryzen offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes, an unusual advantage for the EPYC despite being on AMD Socket AM5.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Ryzen has the Radeon 790M, while the EPYC has Radeon Graphics. The Ryzen's die size is 233 mm² and the EPYC die size is 71 mm². The EPYC lists 6,570 million transistors. The Ryzen has a larger L3 cache per core configuration with 16 MB, while the EPYC has 32 MB shared L3. The Ryzen lists L1 cache as 80 KB per core, and the EPYC lists 64 KB per core. L2 is the same at 1 MB per core on both. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a null series field in the database. The Ryzen's part number is 100-000001683, and the EPYC's part number is 100-000001477.

Architecture Differences

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is built on Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with the codename Strix Point. It belongs to the Ryzen AI PRO 300 generation, which uses both Zen 5 and Zen 5c cores. The EPYC 4364P uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with the codename Raphael. It belongs to the EPYC 4004 series. The EPYC's transistor count is listed as 6,570 million, and its die size is 71 mm². The Ryzen's die size is 233 mm², and no transistor count is recorded for it. The Ryzen's L1 cache is 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core for the EPYC. Both share 1 MB L2 per core. The Ryzen has 16 MB L3, while the EPYC has 32 MB shared L3, doubling the Ryzen's total L3 capacity.

The Ryzen pairs its Zen 5 architecture with a mobile platform, socket FP8, and a 28 W TDP, which explains its low base clock. The EPYC pairs Zen 4 with socket AM5, a 105 W TDP, and high base and boost clocks. The Ryzen's memory support includes LPDDR5X, which is absent from the EPYC's DDR5-only specification. Both processors support ECC memory. The EPYC's PCIe Gen 5 with 28 lanes is a generation and lane-count advantage over the Ryzen's Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The Ryzen's integrated graphics are the Radeon 890M, while the EPYC lists Radeon Graphics. The Ryzen's release date is recorded as January 5, 2025, and the EPYC's release date is May 20, 2024. Both are listed as active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4364P wins in rendering and encoding-style workloads. Its 3.6% lead across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multi-core, makes it the clear choice for anyone relying on Cinebench scores as a proxy for 3D rendering performance. Its 12.4% win in data encryption and 7.1% win in extended instructions point toward server-side tasks like encryption, compression pipelines, and instruction-heavy code. The 29.4% margin in prime number finding is a strong indicator for scientific computing and integer-heavy algorithmic work. Random string sorting also favors the EPYC by 6.2%, which suggests an advantage in data sorting tasks.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 wins in math throughput. Its 11.5% lead in floating point math and 10.9% lead in integer math are significant for simulations, financial modeling, and general number crunching. The 2% win in data compression and 3.2% win in physics simulation add to its profile as a capable general-purpose and physics-oriented part. Its 8.2% win in PassMark single-thread is notable given the EPYC's higher boost clock, and it suggests the Zen 5 architecture extracts more performance per clock in this specific test.

The aggregate scores put the Ryzen slightly ahead overall, 47022 versus 45970, and both chips share the same 89th percentile ranking. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7303 and Intel Core i7-14700HX at a 0% delta, while the Ryzen's nearest rivals are the Ryzen 9 5900 at 0.1% and Core i7-13700K at 0.3%. The practical takeaway: the EPYC for server workloads and Cinebench-style rendering, the Ryzen for math-heavy and single-thread-sensitive tasks, with neither holding a decisive aggregate advantage over the other.