AMD EPYC 4465P vs AMD EPYC 7352 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7352 and AMD EPYC 4465P represent two distinct generations of server processors, and the benchmark data shows a clear split between raw multi-threaded throughput and modern single-thread efficiency. The EPYC 7352, a 24-core Zen 2 part from the EPYC 7002 series, faces the 12-core Zen 5 EPYC 4465P from the newer EPYC 4005 series. While the older chip retains advantages in specific data-heavy workloads, the newer processor dominates across the majority of tests, often by significant margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4465P wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, and its victories are not marginal. In Cinebench testing, the newer chip demonstrates a consistent performance lead across all versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 4465P scores 4326 against the EPYC 7352’s 3458, a 20.1% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a similar 20% gap, with scores of 610 and 488 respectively. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the EPYC 4465P posts 18025 multi-core and 2544 single-core, both exactly 20% ahead of the EPYC 7352’s 14411 and 2034. Cinebench R23 continues the trend: the EPYC 4465P’s 42918 multi-core score beats the EPYC 7352’s 34314 by 20%, while its 6059 single-core score is 20.1% higher than the 4844 from the older part.

The most dramatic single-threaded difference appears in PassMark’s single-thread test. Here, the EPYC 4465P scores 4575, a massive 56.7% higher than the EPYC 7352’s 1979. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and highlights the generational leap in core efficiency. The advantage carries into math and physics workloads. PassMark floating point math favors the EPYC 4465P (105833 vs 87969, a 16.9% lead), and integer math shows a 14.9% edge (174551 vs 148605). PassMark physics is the largest multi-threaded win for the newer chip, with a 26.3% lead (3647 vs 2688). Even in the PassMark multithread test, which might be expected to favor the 24-core part, the EPYC 4465P wins by 19.1% (49871 vs 40370).

The EPYC 7352 does secure three wins, all in PassMark data-processing tasks. Its data compression score of 660712 is 14.5% higher than the EPYC 4465P’s 577210. Data encryption shows an even larger edge of 38%, with scores of 44426 and 32184 respectively. The third win is narrow: random string sorting at 69231 versus 67597, a 2.4% margin. The EPYC 4465P also wins PassMark extended instructions (42867 vs 40203, a 6.2% lead) and find prime numbers (338 vs 301, a 10.9% lead).

Looking at broader context, the EPYC 7352 sits in the 94th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 68118. Its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC 9184X, scores 68202, a negligible 0.1% difference. The EPYC 4465P, despite winning most head-to-head tests, has a slightly lower average score of 66925 and sits in the 93rd percentile. Its closest rival, the Intel Xeon 6515P, scores 67006, just 0.1% behind. This means that while the EPYC 4465P wins the direct comparison, it sits in a similar performance tier overall, with its average score dragged down by the specific data-heavy workloads where the EPYC 7352 excels.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 4465P is significantly faster in single-threaded workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4575 is 56.7% higher than the EPYC 7352’s 1979. Cinebench R23 single-core results confirm this, with the EPYC 4465P scoring 6059 compared to 4844 for the EPYC 7352.

Q: Does the EPYC 7352 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7352 wins three PassMark tests: data compression (660712 vs 577210, +14.5%), data encryption (44426 vs 32184, +38%), and random string sorting (69231 vs 67597, +2.4%). These are the only categories where it beats the EPYC 4465P.

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

A: The EPYC 4465P is consistently about 20% faster in Cinebench multi-threaded tests. In R15, it scores 4326 versus 3458; in R20, 18025 versus 14411; and in R23, 42918 versus 34314. All three show a delta of -20% from the EPYC 4465P’s perspective.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7352 has an average benchmark score of 68118, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 4465P has an average score of 66925, placing it in the 93rd percentile. Despite this, the EPYC 4465P wins 14 of the 17 individual head-to-head tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher base and boost clock speed?

A: The EPYC 4465P has both a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz and a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7352’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. This clock advantage contributes to its large lead in single-threaded performance.

Q: Is there a difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7352 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the EPYC 4465P supports dual-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The older chip has more than double the theoretical memory bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The EPYC 7352 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, while the EPYC 4465P uses the newer Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Grado. This generational gap is reflected in their manufacturing processes: the EPYC 7352 is fabricated on a 7 nm process, while the EPYC 4465P uses a more advanced 4 nm process, both at TSMC. The transistor counts differ as well, with the EPYC 7352 containing 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies, and the EPYC 4465P containing 16,630 million transistors across two 70.6 mm² dies.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The EPYC 7352 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB. The EPYC 4465P has 80 KB of L1 per core and a larger 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 64 MB of shared L3. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache. The socket and platform differ completely: the EPYC 7352 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the EPYC 4465P uses AMD Socket AM5. The EPYC 4465P also integrates Radeon Graphics, which the EPYC 7352 lacks.

The memory architectures are notably different. The EPYC 7352 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 4465P supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities also differ: the EPYC 7352 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 4465P offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 4465P’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 3.20 GHz on the EPYC 7352 is a key architectural advantage, as is its more recent release date of May 2025 versus August 2019.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are a primary differentiator: the EPYC 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds strongly favor the newer chip, with the EPYC 4465P running at 3.40 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost, compared to the EPYC 7352’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The thermal design power is vastly different, with the EPYC 7352 rated at 155 W and the EPYC 4465P at just 65 W.

Memory support diverges completely: the EPYC 7352 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 4465P uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The PCIe specification also differs, with the EPYC 7352 providing Gen 4 across 128 lanes and the EPYC 4465P providing Gen 5 across 24 lanes. The EPYC 4465P includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the EPYC 7352 has no integrated graphics. The launch MSRP values are $1350 for the EPYC 7352 and $399 for the EPYC 4465P. Both have locked multipliers. Their part numbers are 100-000000077 for the EPYC 7352 and 100-000001558 for the EPYC 4465P.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear generational shift. The AMD EPYC 4465P is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads, winning 14 of 17 tests. Its single-threaded performance is in a different class, with a 56.7% lead in PassMark single-thread testing, and it maintains a consistent 20% advantage across all Cinebench multi-threaded benchmarks despite having half the cores and threads of the EPYC 7352. The newer Zen 5 architecture, combined with much higher clock speeds (5.40 GHz boost vs 3.20 GHz), allows it to outperform the older 24-core part in nearly every category. Its lower TDP of 65 W versus 155 W makes it a more efficient choice on paper.

The AMD EPYC 7352 retains a role for specific data-centric tasks. Its 38% lead in data encryption and 14.5% lead in data compression suggest that its larger total L3 cache (128 MB) and eight-channel memory bus (204.8 GB/s) provide tangible benefits for these workloads. The EPYC 4465P, with its dual-channel bus and 64 MB of L3, cannot match this throughput. For workloads heavily dependent on encryption or compression, the EPYC 7352 is the better option based on the data.

For general server workloads, rendering, physics simulation, and any task that benefits from high single-thread performance, the EPYC 4465P is the clear choice. It delivers higher scores in 14 of 17 benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests and the majority of PassMark math and multithreaded tests. The only scenarios favoring the EPYC 7352 are the specific data compression, encryption, and string sorting benchmarks. Users with workloads matching those three categories may prefer the older chip; everyone else should look to the EPYC 4465P based on the benchmark results.