AMD EPYC 4464P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4464P and AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 are both 12-core, 24-thread processors, but they target entirely different segments: the EPYC is a server/workstation chip on Socket AM5, while the Ryzen AI Max PRO is a mobile part on Socket FP11. Benchmark data shows the EPYC 4464P wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, with the Ryzen AI Max PRO taking only 2. This analysis breaks down exactly where each processor excels, based strictly on the measured scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic separation occurs in Cinebench single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 4464P scores 5677 against the Ryzen AI Max PRO’s 1976, a massive 187.3% advantage. The Cinebench R15 single-core test tells a similar story: 572 for the EPYC versus 303 for the Ryzen, an 88.8% lead. This is not a small gap; it is a generational chasm in raw single-threaded performance.

Multi-core Cinebench results also favor the EPYC, though less extremely. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 40215 versus 24828 for the Ryzen, a 62% difference. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a closer contest: 4053 for the EPYC against 3918 for the Ryzen, a 3.4% edge. The pattern suggests the EPYC’s higher clock speeds—5.40 GHz boost versus 5.00 GHz—translate into substantial throughput advantages in heavily threaded rendering workloads.

PassMark tests reveal a more nuanced picture. The EPYC wins integer math 160410 to 148508 (8% ahead), multithread 47514 to 42912 (10.7% ahead), and single-thread 4146 to 3967 (4.5% ahead). Data compression goes to the EPYC with 574304 versus 506170 (13.5% ahead), and data encryption shows a 37.6% EPYC advantage (35816 vs 26027). Random string sorting is another EPYC win: 70200 vs 55248, a 27.1% margin.

The Ryzen AI Max PRO’s two wins are narrow but real. Floating-point math goes to the Ryzen 94666 versus 93090, a 1.7% edge. Extended instructions also favor the Ryzen: 40888 vs 39359, a 3.7% advantage. These are the only tests where the mobile chip pulls ahead, suggesting its Zen 5 architecture has specific strengths in vectorized or SIMD-style workloads.

Other results are close. Find prime numbers favors the EPYC 343 vs 323 (6.2%), and physics favors the EPYC 2873 vs 2773 (3.6%). The EPYC’s overall average benchmark score is 64823, placing it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs; the Ryzen’s average is 63765, also in the 93rd percentile. The delta between their averages is just over 1%, but the distribution of wins is lopsided.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4464P is the clear winner for single-threaded responsiveness and classic multi-core throughput. Its Cinebench R23 single-core score of 5677 is not just ahead of the Ryzen—it is in a different league. For tasks that depend on one fast core, such as older software, database queries, or lightly threaded applications, the EPYC’s 5.40 GHz boost clock delivers decisively better performance. The 62% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core also makes it the pick for rendering, video encoding, or any workload that scales across all 24 threads.

The EPYC also dominates in memory-sensitive and I/O-heavy tasks. Data compression shows a 13.5% edge, and random string sorting a 27.1% edge. The EPYC supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses LPDDR5X with quad-channel memory and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth—yet the EPYC still wins these tests. This suggests the EPYC’s higher clocks and Zen 4 efficiency overcome the Ryzen’s memory bandwidth advantage in these specific benchmarks.

The Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 wins only in floating-point math and extended instructions. The 1.7% lead in floating-point math and 3.7% lead in extended instructions indicate that Zen 5’s improved FPU and instruction handling give it an edge in scientific computing, simulation, or any workload heavy on SIMD operations. However, these wins are marginal and do not compensate for the EPYC’s broad dominance elsewhere.

For gaming or general desktop use, the EPYC’s single-thread scores are the deciding factor. The Ryzen’s integrated Radeon 8050S graphics might appeal for a compact system, but the CPU performance gap is too wide. The EPYC also has Radeon Graphics, but its CPU scores are what matter. For server workloads, the EPYC’s 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus the Ryzen’s 16 Gen 4 lanes further reinforce its position, though this is a spec difference, not a benchmark.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 4464P is the faster processor in nearly every measurable way. It wins 13 of 15 head-to-head tests, with decisive margins in single-core (187.3% in Cinebench R23) and multi-core (62% in Cinebench R23) performance. Its average benchmark score of 64823 outpaces the Ryzen’s 63765, and it matches the Ryzen’s 93rd percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Choose the EPYC 4464P if you need maximum CPU throughput for rendering, data compression, encryption, or any multithreaded server/workstation task. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 64 MB shared L3 cache make it a top-tier performer for its class. The EPYC’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3% ahead) and AMD EPYC 9124 (0.4% behind), placing it in elite company.

Choose the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 only if your workload is dominated by floating-point math or extended instruction sets, where it holds a 1.7% and 3.7% edge, respectively. Its 4 nm Zen 5 architecture and 256.0 GB/s quad-channel LPDDR5X memory bandwidth are impressive, but they do not translate into benchmark wins outside those two niches. The Ryzen’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.4% ahead) and AMD Ryzen AI 7 450G (0.7% behind), showing it is competitive, but not against the EPYC.

For nearly all buyers, the EPYC 4464P is the better investment in raw compute. The Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 is a capable mobile part, but it is outclassed here.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4464P is overwhelmingly faster. It scores 5677 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1976 for the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390, a 187.3% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 572 versus 303, an 88.8% lead.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 better at any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins two tests. It scores 94666 in PassMark floating-point math versus 93090 for the EPYC (1.7% ahead), and 40888 in extended instructions versus 39359 (3.7% ahead). These are the only two head-to-head wins for the Ryzen.

Q: How do their multi-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC leads in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 40215 versus 24828, a 62% difference. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 4053 versus 3918, a smaller 3.4% margin. PassMark multithread also favors the EPYC: 47514 versus 42912.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 4464P uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. Despite the Ryzen’s higher bandwidth, the EPYC wins data compression (574304 vs 506170) and random string sorting (70200 vs 55248).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4464P boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 boosts to 5.00 GHz. The EPYC’s base clock is also higher at 3.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. The EPYC has a 65 W TDP, and the Ryzen has a 55 W TDP.

Q: How do they rank against all CPUs?

A: Both processors are in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 4464P has an average benchmark score of 64823, and the Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 has an average of 63765. The EPYC’s nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 265 (0.3% ahead), while the Ryzen’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-13900KS (0.4% ahead).

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 4464P is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Raphael codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It uses 13,140 million transistors and has a die size of 2x 71 mm². The Ryzen AI Max PRO 390 uses the newer Zen 5 architecture with the Strix Halo codename, on a 4 nm process, also by TSMC. The Ryzen’s transistor count and die size are not listed, but the process shrink from 5 nm to 4 nm is a notable architectural advancement.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. The Ryzen has a larger 80 KB L1 per core, the same 1 MB L2 per core, and the same 64 MB shared L3. The larger L1 cache on the Ryzen likely contributes to its wins in floating-point and extended instruction tests.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth—three times the bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, but the Ryzen’s higher bandwidth is offset by its lower clocks in most tests.

PCIe connectivity differs sharply. The EPYC provides Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC’s newer PCIe standard and more lanes make it better suited for high-throughput expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPUs. Integrated graphics also differ: the EPYC has Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen has the more capable Radeon 8050S, but this does not affect CPU benchmark scores.

The socket and market segment are fundamental architectural differences. The EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5 and is a Server/Workstation part. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP11 and is a Mobile part. This reflects their intended use cases: the EPYC is designed for socketed, upgradeable systems, while the Ryzen is a soldered mobile chip.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds differ: the EPYC has a 3.70 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost, while the Ryzen has a 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. The EPYC’s clocks are higher across the board, which explains its single-core dominance.

TDP differs: the EPYC is rated at 65 W, and the Ryzen at 55 W. The EPYC draws more power but delivers more performance. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $429; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Memory configuration is a key difference: the EPYC supports DDR5 with dual-channel memory, while the Ryzen supports LPDDR5X with quad-channel memory. The memory bandwidth is 83.2 GB/s for the EPYC and 256.0 GB/s for the Ryzen. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes are another differentiator: the EPYC has Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), and the Ryzen has Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC’s socket is AM5, and the Ryzen’s is FP11. The EPYC’s part number is 100-000001478, and the Ryzen’s is 100-000001421.

Release dates differ: the EPYC was released on 2024-05-20, and the Ryzen on 2025-01-05. The EPYC is from the EPYC 4004 series, while the Ryzen has no listed series. The EPYC’s architecture is Zen 4 (Raphael), and the Ryzen’s is Zen 5 (Strix Halo). The EPYC’s process node is 5 nm, and the Ryzen’s is 4 nm. The EPYC’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core, and the Ryzen’s is 80 KB per core; both have 1 MB L2 per core and 64 MB shared L3.