AMD EPYC 4364P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two AMD processors. The EPYC 4364P dominates the Cinebench suite, while the Ryzen AI Max 385 carves out specific wins in PassMark tests. Out of 17 recorded benchmarks, the EPYC 4364P takes 12, leaving the Ryzen AI Max 385 with 5.

The most dramatic gap appears in Cinebench. Across every Cinebench test, the EPYC 4364P holds a 47% lead in multicore and a 47.1% lead in R15 single-core. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC scores 29,589 against the Ryzen's 15,674. That is nearly double the output. The single-core R23 gap is similarly stark: 4,177 versus 2,212. The R15 multicore result shows 2,982 for the EPYC against 1,579, and R15 single-core shows 420 versus 222. R20 multicore follows the same pattern with 12,427 versus 6,583, and R20 single-core has 1,754 versus 929. These are not incremental jumps; they represent a fundamental difference in sustained throughput capability.

However, the Ryzen AI Max 385 is not without its own victories. The PassMark single-thread test is its strongest showing, scoring 4,060 versus the EPYC's 3,619, a 12.2% advantage. That is a meaningful edge for lightly threaded workloads. It also wins in extended instructions by 7.2% (33,873 versus 31,605) and in floating-point math by 6.2% (71,105 versus 66,946). The physics test goes to the Ryzen as well, 1,889 versus 1,785, a 5.8% lead.

The EPYC's wins in the remaining PassMark tests are mostly narrow. Data compression is nearly identical: 408,220 versus 406,505, a 0.4% difference. Integer math is also close (107,775 versus 107,046, a 0.7% gap), as is multithread (33,883 versus 33,705, a 0.5% gap). The EPYC pulls ahead more decisively in random string sorting (48,344 versus 43,725, a 9.6% lead) and data encryption (24,174 versus 19,926, a 17.6% lead). It also leads in prime number finding, 177 versus 165, a 6.8% advantage. The data suggests that for many server-style workloads such as compression and encryption, the EPYC's higher sustained throughput is a consistent, if sometimes narrow, winner.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different design philosophies. The Ryzen AI Max 385 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, and manufactured on a 4nm process at TSMC. The EPYC 4364P uses Zen 4, codename Raphael, on a 5nm process from the same foundry. The EPYC has a slightly larger die at 71 mm², while the Ryzen uses a dual-chip design with each die at 70.6 mm². The EPYC lists 6,570 million transistors; the Ryzen's transistor count is not recorded.

Both CPUs have 8 cores and 16 threads, and both share 32 MB of L3 cache. The L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core. The L1 cache differs slightly: the Ryzen has 80 KB per core, while the EPYC has 64 KB per core. The Ryzen's clock strategy is more conservative on paper: a 3.60 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost, whereas the EPYC boosts higher with a 4.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. The EPYC's higher boost clock helps explain its single-core dominance in Cinebench, despite the Ryzen's newer architecture.

The platform differences are extensive. The Ryzen operates on a 55W TDP within an AMD Socket FP11, the EPYC on a 105W TDP in an AMD Socket AM5. Memory support is a key divider: the Ryzen uses LPDDR5X memory across a quad-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses standard DDR5 across a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen's memory interface is twice as wide, offering significantly more bandwidth, which likely contributes to its wins in memory-sensitive tasks like floating-point math and extended instructions. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC is the server part.

The integrated graphics also diverge. The Ryzen includes a Radeon 8050S, while the EPYC carries a more basic Radeon Graphics. This is a major functional difference for end users. The Ryzen is classified as a mobile segment processor, whereas the EPYC is a server and workstation part. The Ryzen has 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the EPYC has 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, which suits the EPYC to higher-bandwidth add-in cards and storage.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4364P is the clear winner for peak multi-core compute. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 29,589, which is 47% above the Ryzen's 15,674, makes it the better choice for rendering, compiling, and other heavily threaded tasks. The data also shows a 17.6% lead in the encryption, which is important for server-side security workloads. The EPYC's advantage in prime number finding (6.8%) and random string sorting (9.6%) further points to a processor designed for sustained compute server tasks. Its 105W TDP and server/ workstation segment classification mean the data is measured in a context of consistent, high demand.

The Ryzen AI Max 385 wins where per-core performance and memory bandwidth matter more. Its 12.2% lead in PassMark single-core suggests faster response in thin, lightly threaded workloads. The 7.2% win in extended instructions and 6.2% in floating-point math indicate strengths in scientific and media processing tasks. The 5.8% advantage in physics tests is notable for simulation and gaming physics. Its 4nm process and higher L1 cache (80 KB per core) likely contribute to its single-thread efficiency. The quad-channel, 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is a decisive advantage for AI and GPU-adjacent workloads, although the database does not provide dedicated AI benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a split by use case. For a server or workstation processor, the EPYC 4364P is the clear choice. Its 47% lead in every Cinebench test, plus wins in encryption, string handling, and prime numbers, demonstrates that it is the more capable raw multi-core performer. Its higher 105W TDP and AM5 socket reflect a design for a machine that is plugged in and working hard. The EPYC's 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus the Ryzen's 88th, reinforces its overall standing.

For a mobile or integrated system, the Ryzen AI Max 385 is the more compelling package. The data shows it holds a 12.2% lead in single-threaded performance, which is crucial for responsive daily use. Its 7.2% win in extended instructions and 6.2% win in floating-point math suggest it can handle specialized tasks efficiently. The huge 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, combined with the Radeon 8050S graphics, makes it a strong candidate for integrated GPU scenarios. Its 55W TDP is far more efficient than the EPYC's 105W, fitting its mobile classification. The EPYC's launch MSRP was $399, but the Ryzen's price is not listed.

In short, if you need raw multi-core compute and server features, the EPYC 4364P is the data-backed choice. If you prioritize single-thread speed, memory bandwidth, and an integrated GPU, the Ryzen AI Max 385 is the better fit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max 385, which scores 4,060 in PassMark's single-thread test versus 3,619 for the AMD EPYC 4364P, a 12.2% lead.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: The EPYC 4364P is far ahead. It scores 29,589 in Cinebench R23 multicore versus 15,674 for the Ryzen, a 47% advantage. It also leads by 47% in R15 and R20 multicore.

Q: What are the main memory differences?

A: The Ryzen uses LPDDR5X in a quad-channel configuration with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR5 in a dual-channel setup with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4364P, with a 5.40 GHz boost clock, versus 5.00 GHz for the Ryzen AI Max 385. The EPYC also has a higher base clock at 4.50 GHz versus 3.60 GHz.

Q: Are they on the same manufacturing process?

A: No. The Ryzen AI Max 385 uses a 4nm process (TSMC), while the EPYC 4364P uses a 5nm process (TSMC).

Q: What is the relative ranking of each processor?

A: The EPYC 4364P ranks at the 89th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen AI Max 385 ranks at the 88th percentile. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 45,970 versus 44,309 for the Ryzen.

Specification Differences

• Architecture: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Zen 5; EPYC 4364P is Zen 4.
• Codename: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Strix Halo; EPYC 4364P is Raphael.
• Process Node: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 4nm; EPYC 4364P is 5nm.
• Core Base Clock: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 3.60 GHz; EPYC 4364P is 4.50 GHz.
• Core Boost Clock: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 5.00 GHz; EPYC 4364P is 5.40 GHz.
• TDP: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 55W; EPYC 4364P is 105W.
• Socket: Ryzen AI Max 385 is AMD Socket FP11; EPYC 4364P is AMD Socket AM5.
• L1 Cache: Ryzen AI Max 385 has 80 KB (per core); EPYC 4364P has 64 KB (per core).
• Die Size: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 2x 70.6 mm²; EPYC 4364P is 71 mm².
• Transistors: EPYC 4364P is 6,570 million; Ryzen AI Max 385 is not listed.
• Memory Support: Ryzen AI Max 385 is LPDDR5X; EPYC 4364P is DDR5.
• Memory Bus: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Quad-channel; EPYC 4364P is Dual-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 256.0 GB/s; EPYC 4364P is 83.2 GB/s.
• PCIe: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Gen 4, 16 Lanes; EPYC 4364P is Gen 5, 28 Lanes.
• Integrated Graphics: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Radeon 8050S; EPYC 4364P is Radeon Graphics.
• Market Segment: Ryzen AI Max 385 is Mobile; EPYC 4364P is Server/Workstation.
• Release Date: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 2025-01-05; EPYC 4364P is 2024-05-20.
• Part Number: Ryzen AI Max 385 is 100-000001424; EPYC 4364P is 100-000001477.