AMD EPYC 4464P vs AMD EPYC 7352 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits these two AMD EPYC processors into a clear pattern: the EPYC 4464P dominates in most workloads, while the EPYC 7352 holds a narrower set of specialized wins. Across the 17 recorded tests, the EPYC 4464P takes 14 victories, with the EPYC 7352 claiming 3. The average benchmark score tells a similar story, with the EPYC 7352 posting 68118 against the EPYC 4464P's 64823, a gap of roughly 4.8 percent in favor of the older chip when averaging all tests together.

The most dramatic difference appears in single-thread performance. In the PassMark single-thread test, the EPYC 4464P scores 4146, while the EPYC 7352 manages only 1979. That is a 52.3 percent deficit for the EPYC 7352, the largest margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench single-core results confirm the trend, though with a smaller gap: the EPYC 4464P reaches 572 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 488 for the EPYC 7352, a 14.7 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 2384 and 2034, again a 14.7 percent lead for the EPYC 4464P. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5677 against 4844, maintaining that same 14.7 percent margin.

Multi-threaded Cinebench results also favor the EPYC 4464P despite its lower core count. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 4464P scores 4053, beating the EPYC 7352's 3458 by 14.7 percent. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 16890 versus 14411, and Cinebench R23 multicore shows 40215 versus 34314. In each case, the EPYC 4464P leads by exactly 14.7 percent, suggesting a consistent per-core advantage that more than compensates for having half the cores.

PassMark multithread scores follow the same direction. The EPYC 4464P posts 47514, while the EPYC 7352 records 40370, a 15 percent lead for the newer chip. PassMark integer math also goes to the EPYC 4464P, with 160410 against 148605, a 7.4 percent margin. Floating-point math favors the EPYC 4464P by 5.5 percent, scoring 93090 versus 87969. The physics test shows a 6.4 percent advantage for the EPYC 4464P, with 2873 versus 2688. Prime number finding, a workload sensitive to single-thread speed, gives the EPYC 4464P a 12.2 percent edge, scoring 343 versus 301.

The EPYC 7352's wins are concentrated in data-centric workloads. PassMark data compression shows the EPYC 7352 ahead with 660712 versus 574304, a 15 percent advantage. Data encryption is its strongest win, with 44426 versus 35816, a 24 percent lead. Extended instructions also favor the older chip, though narrowly: 40203 versus 39359, a 2.1 percent margin. Random string sorting is nearly a tie, with the EPYC 4464P winning by just 1.4 percent, scoring 70200 versus 69231.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of AMD's EPYC roadmap. The EPYC 7352 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 15,200 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 74 mm². The EPYC 4464P is part of the EPYC 4004 series, based on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael. It uses a newer 5 nm process from TSMC, with 13,140 million transistors on a die size of 2x 71 mm².

Core counts differ substantially. The EPYC 7352 offers 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC 4464P provides 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the older chip has exactly twice the core and thread count. Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The EPYC 7352 runs at a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The EPYC 4464P runs at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The newer chip's boost clock is 68.75 percent higher, which explains its dominance in single-threaded tests.

Cache layouts differ in both size and organization. The EPYC 7352 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3. The EPYC 4464P has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7352's larger total L3 reflects its multi-die design, while the EPYC 4464P relies on a smaller but faster per-core cache arrangement.

Memory support marks a generational shift. The EPYC 7352 uses DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC 4464P uses DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The older chip has more than double the memory channels and more than double the bandwidth, which helps in memory-heavy server workloads.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The EPYC 7352 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC 4464P provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes. The newer standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the older chip has far more lanes for expansion. The EPYC 4464P includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the EPYC 7352 has no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. Sockets are incompatible: the EPYC 7352 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the EPYC 4464P uses AMD Socket AM5.

Power consumption diverges sharply. The EPYC 7352 has a TDP of 155 watts, while the EPYC 4464P has a TDP of 65 watts. The newer chip delivers higher performance in most tests while drawing less than half the thermal envelope. Release dates also reflect the generational gap, with the EPYC 7352 launching in 2019 and the EPYC 4464P launching in 2024.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4464P is the clear winner for workloads that depend on raw per-core speed. Single-threaded applications, lightly threaded server tasks, and real-time processing benefit from its 5.40 GHz boost clock and Zen 4 architecture. The 52.3 percent lead in PassMark single-thread and the consistent 14.7 percent margins in Cinebench single-core tests show that this chip excels at latency-sensitive tasks. Its wins in integer math, floating-point math, physics, and prime number finding point to general-purpose compute strength across a wide range of scientific and engineering applications.

The EPYC 4464P also wins in Cinebench multicore despite having half the cores. This suggests that for workloads that scale well with high clock speeds rather than core count, the newer chip is the better choice. The 15 percent lead in PassMark multithread reinforces this conclusion. For a smaller server or workstation handling mixed workloads, the EPYC 4464P offers a compelling balance of speed and efficiency.

The EPYC 7352 claims its victories in data-heavy tasks. PassMark data compression and data encryption are both dominated by the older chip, with leads of 15 percent and 24 percent respectively. These workloads likely benefit from the larger total L3 cache of 128 MB and the eight-channel memory interface. The EPYC 7352 also edges ahead in extended instructions, suggesting that certain SIMD-heavy code paths run better on the Zen 2 design with its larger cache hierarchy.

For environments that require massive memory bandwidth, the EPYC 7352's 204.8 GB/s versus the EPYC 4464P's 83.2 GB/s makes it the stronger candidate. Applications that stream large datasets, such as in-memory databases or high-performance computing simulations, will see a bandwidth advantage from the older chip. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes also provide far more expansion capacity for storage controllers, network cards, or accelerators than the 28 Gen 5 lanes of the EPYC 4464P.

The EPYC 7352's 24 cores and 48 threads give it a theoretical advantage in heavily parallel workloads that are not limited by memory bandwidth or single-thread speed. However, the recorded benchmarks show that the EPYC 4464P actually wins in most multithreaded tests, so the core count advantage does not translate into real-world victories in these measured scenarios.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward recommendation for most buyers. The AMD EPYC 4464P is the superior processor for the majority of workloads, winning 14 of 17 benchmark comparisons. Its single-thread performance is exceptional, with a 52.3 percent lead in PassMark single-thread and a 14.7 percent advantage across all Cinebench tests. Its multicore scores also beat the EPYC 7352 in every Cinebench version, despite using only half the cores. The 65 watt TDP makes it far more efficient than the 155 watt EPYC 7352, which is a meaningful consideration for dense server deployments or small form factor systems.

The EPYC 4464P is the right choice for general-purpose server workloads, virtualization hosts, developer machines, and any environment where per-core performance and low power draw matter. Its DDR5 memory support and Gen 5 PCIe provide modern platform features, and the integrated Radeon Graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios. The launch MSRP of $429 positions it as an accessible option for single-socket workstations.

The AMD EPYC 7352 is the better pick only for specific data-centric use cases. Its 24 percent lead in data encryption and 15 percent lead in data compression make it attractive for security-focused appliances, database compression engines, or archival systems. The 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe lanes support heavy I/O configurations that the EPYC 4464P cannot match. For servers that prioritize memory throughput and expansion capacity over raw compute speed, the EPYC 7352 remains relevant.

The average benchmark scores show the EPYC 7352 slightly ahead overall, 68118 versus 64823, which reflects its wins in the data-heavy PassMark tests. But the distribution of wins matters more than the average. The EPYC 4464P wins the tests that most users will run daily, while the EPYC 7352 wins a narrower set of specialized workloads. For most buyers, the EPYC 4464P is the more practical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4464P has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the EPYC 4464P scores 4146 versus 1979 for the EPYC 7352, a 52.3 percent advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 4464P scores 5677 versus 4844, a 14.7 percent lead.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench multicore tests?

A: The EPYC 4464P wins all three Cinebench multicore tests. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 40215 versus 34314 for the EPYC 7352, a 14.7 percent margin.

Q: Where does the EPYC 7352 outperform the EPYC 4464P?

A: The EPYC 7352 wins in PassMark data compression (660712 versus 574304, a 15 percent lead), data encryption (44426 versus 35816, a 24 percent lead), and extended instructions (40203 versus 39359, a 2.1 percent lead).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The EPYC 7352 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 4464P supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The EPYC 7352 has a TDP of 155 watts, while the EPYC 4464P has a TDP of 65 watts.