AMD EPYC 4364P vs Intel Core Ultra X9 388H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly split picture between the AMD EPYC 4364P and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H. Across the 17 recorded tests, Intel edges out AMD with 9 wins to 8, but the magnitude of those wins tells a more complex story. The most dramatic single result belongs to AMD in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC 4364P scores 4177 against Intel's 2200.5, a commanding 89.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and indicates a substantial per-thread performance gap in that particular workload.

Cinebench R23 multi-core also favors AMD heavily, with the EPYC 4364P posting 29589 versus 18911 for the Intel part, a 56.5% lead. This result is notable because Intel's chip has twice the core count, yet still loses decisively in this render test. The Cinebench R15 single-core test similarly goes to AMD by 35.7%, with scores of 420 and 309.5 respectively. AMD also takes the R15 multi-core test, though by a much narrower 0.9% margin, scoring 2982 against Intel's 2955.

Intel's wins are concentrated in PassMark workloads and the Cinebench R20 tests. The most lopsided Intel victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Core Ultra X9 388H scores 358 versus AMD's 177, a 50.6% advantage. PassMark floating point math also goes strongly to Intel, 112550 to 66946, a 40.5% gap. PassMark physics shows Intel ahead by 44.7% with scores of 3226 and 1785. Intel also wins PassMark single-thread by 15.4% (4280 vs 3619), PassMark data encryption by 15.1% (28490 vs 24174), and PassMark multithread by 8% (36811 vs 33883).

The Cinebench R20 results flip the R23 narrative. Intel wins R20 multi-core by 5.1% (13101 vs 12427) and R20 single-core by the same 5.1% margin (1849 vs 1754). This inconsistency between R20 and R23 is worth noting for anyone relying on a single benchmark to characterize these processors. AMD counters with PassMark integer math, winning 107775 to 90882, an 18.6% margin, and PassMark data compression at 408220 versus 361763, a 12.8% lead. AMD also takes PassMark extended instructions (31605 vs 29943, 5.6% ahead) and PassMark random string sorting (48344 vs 44010, 9.8% ahead).

The average benchmark scores place the AMD EPYC 4364P at 45970 with an 89th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H averages 44466 at the 88th percentile. The nearest rivals in the database for AMD include the AMD EPYC 7303 (45960, 0% delta), Intel Core i7-14700HX (45953, 0% delta), AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 375 (46030, -0.1%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 235 (46062, -0.2%). For Intel, the closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 7500X3D (44573, -0.2%), Intel Core i9-13950HX (44342, 0.3%), AMD Ryzen AI Max 385 (44309, 0.4%), and Intel Core i5-13600 (44240, 0.5%). These proximity figures indicate both processors sit in a tightly contested performance band despite their different design philosophies.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD EPYC 4364P is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, and fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 6,570 million transistors on a 71 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H uses the Panther Lake architecture, fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The database records no transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The EPYC 4364P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores but also 16 threads, meaning Intel's chip does not use simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part runs at a base clock of 4.50 GHz and boosts to 5.40 GHz, while Intel operates at 2.10 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost. The TDP figures differ dramatically: 105 watts for AMD versus 25 watts for Intel, reflecting the server versus mobile market positioning.

Cache hierarchies are also dissimilar. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. Intel provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 18 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core Intel caches partially compensate for the smaller shared L3 pool. Memory support differs as well: AMD uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while Intel uses LPDDR5X with dual-channel access and 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported by AMD but not by Intel. The integrated graphics also differ, with AMD featuring Radeon Graphics and Intel featuring Arc B390.

PCIe lane counts show a major gap. The AMD EPYC 4364P provides 28 Gen 5 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H offers only 4 Gen 5 lanes. This makes the AMD part far more suitable for expansion-heavy server workloads. The AMD chip uses Socket AM5, while Intel uses BGA 2540, a soldered mobile package. Market segments reflect these choices: AMD targets server and workstation, Intel targets mobile. Both parts are listed as Active in production status, with AMD releasing on 2024-05-20 and Intel on 2026-01-04.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P boosts to 5.40 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H's 5.10 GHz boost.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has 16 cores, double the 8 cores of the AMD EPYC 4364P. However, both processors support 16 threads, since Intel does not implement hyper-threading on this part.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 4364P supports ECC memory. The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H does not include ECC support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H has a recorded memory bandwidth of 153.6 GB/s with LPDDR5X memory, while the AMD EPYC 4364P reaches 83.2 GB/s with DDR5. Intel's bandwidth is nearly double.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 4364P wins by a wide margin, scoring 29589 against Intel's 18911, a 56.5% advantage despite having half the core count.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both the AMD EPYC 4364P and the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H are locked parts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4364P | Intel Core Ultra X9 388H |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 105 W | 25 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 2540 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Panther Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB per core |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB per core | 3 MB per core |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB shared | 18 MB shared |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ECC Support | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Arc B390 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2026-01-04 |

| Launch MSRP | $399 | Not recorded |

The Verdict

The data points to two very different tools for two very different jobs. The AMD EPYC 4364P, with its 105 W TDP, server socket, 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC support, and 89th percentile ranking, is built for sustained multi-core throughput in a workstation or server chassis. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 29589, a 56.5% advantage over Intel, combined with an 89.8% single-core lead in the same test suite, makes it the stronger choice for rendering, compilation, and other CPU-bound professional workloads. The launch MSRP of $399 positions it in the database as a server-class part.

The Intel Core Ultra X9 388H, at 25 W TDP and a mobile BGA package, is designed for laptops and compact systems where power efficiency and portability take precedence. Its PassMark wins in floating point math (112550, 40.5% ahead), physics (3226, 44.7% ahead), and find prime numbers (358, 50.6% ahead) suggest strengths in specific numerical and simulation tasks. The 153.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, nearly double AMD's figure, benefits memory-bound mobile workloads.

For a database audience, the choice hinges on the deployment environment. If the system lives on a desk or in a rack and the workload is multi-threaded rendering or heavy integer math, the AMD EPYC 4364P is the clear winner. If the target is a mobile platform or a low-power appliance and the workload involves floating-point simulation or physics, the Intel Core Ultra X9 388H holds the advantage. The 88th percentile ranking for Intel versus 89th for AMD reflects how close these parts are in overall aggregate performance, but the architectural split means users should match the processor to the task rather than pick a blanket winner.