AMD EPYC 4484PX vs AMD EPYC 7352 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7352 and AMD EPYC 4484PX are both 96th-percentile server/workstation processors, but they achieve that standing through completely different designs. The 7352 is a 24-core Zen 2 part built for massive memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion, while the 4484PX is a 12-core Zen 4 chip with 3D V-Cache and extremely high clock speeds. Benchmark results show a clear split: the 4484PX dominates most compute workloads, but the 7352 holds specific data-processing wins. This analysis breaks down where each chip excels, based strictly on measured scores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the near-uniform victory of the AMD EPYC 4484PX across Cinebench tests. In every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core run, the 4484PX wins by exactly 20.1%. For multi-core, the 4484PX scores 4330 in R15 versus 3458 for the 7352, 18044 versus 14411 in R20, and 42964 versus 34314 in R23. Single-core results follow the same 20.1% gap: 611 versus 488 in R15, 2547 versus 2034 in R20, and 6065 versus 4844 in R23. This consistency suggests a fundamental per-thread advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.

The 4484PX also wins the PassMark multi-thread test by 20.1%, scoring 50547 against 40370. That benchmark reinforces the idea that despite having half the cores, the 4484PX’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture let it outpace the 7352 in general threaded work.

The biggest single-core margin appears in PassMark single-thread, where the 4484PX scores 4119 against 1979 — a 52% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire dataset, and it highlights the raw clock speed difference between the two chips. The 4484PX’s 5.60 GHz boost clock versus the 7352’s 3.20 GHz explains this gap directly.

Physics simulation shows another lopsided result. The 4484PX scores 4938 versus 2688, a 45.6% advantage. That workload benefits heavily from both high clocks and the 3D V-Cache, making it a strong indicator for simulation and physics-based rendering tasks.

The 4484PX also wins integer math (162993 versus 148605, 8.8% ahead), floating-point math (96446 versus 87969, 8.8% ahead), and extended instructions (43315 versus 40203, 7.2% ahead). Prime number finding favors the 4484PX by 29.2% (425 versus 301), and random string sorting goes to the 4484PX by 3.4% (71642 versus 69231).

The AMD EPYC 7352 claims only two wins, but they are meaningful. Data compression scores 660712 versus 603371 — a 9.5% lead for the 7352. Data encryption shows an even larger 21.7% advantage: 44426 versus 36499. These two workloads depend heavily on memory bandwidth and parallel throughput, where the 7352’s eight-channel DDR4 interface provides 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the 4484PX’s dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s.

Out of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the 4484PX wins 15, the 7352 wins 2. Average benchmark scores reflect this: the 7352 sits at 68118, the 4484PX at 67822, a difference of just 0.4%. In the nearest rivals list, the 7352 is 0.1% behind the AMD EPYC 9184X, while the 4484PX is 0.6% behind that same chip. Both processors land within a narrow performance band, but the distribution of wins could not be more different.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX wins every single-core benchmark by a wide margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6065 versus 4844 (20.1% ahead), and PassMark single-thread shows 4119 versus 1979 (52% ahead).

Q: Does the 24-core EPYC 7352 beat the 12-core EPYC 4484PX in multi-threaded tests?

A: No. Despite having twice the cores and threads, the 7352 loses every Cinebench multi-core test by 20.1%. PassMark multithread also goes to the 4484PX by 20.1% (50547 versus 40370).

Q: What workloads favor the EPYC 7352?

A: Data compression and data encryption. The 7352 scores 660712 in compression (9.5% ahead) and 44426 in encryption (21.7% ahead), likely due to its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth.

Q: How do the two chips compare in average benchmark score?

A: The 7352 has an average benchmark score of 68118, while the 4484PX scores 67822. That puts the 7352 just 0.4% higher overall, and the two are within 0.4% of each other in the nearest rivals list.

Q: Is the 4484PX better for physics simulation?

A: Yes, by a huge margin. The 4484PX scores 4938 in PassMark physics versus 2688 for the 7352, a 45.6% advantage.

Q: Does the 7352 win any PassMark tests?

A: It wins exactly two: data compression and data encryption. Every other PassMark test in the dataset goes to the 4484PX.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use different manufacturing processes. The EPYC 7352 is built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. The EPYC 4484PX uses Zen 4 architecture with the codename Raphael, on a 5 nm process, also from TSMC. The newer process node contributes to the 4484PX’s higher clock speeds and better per-core efficiency.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The 7352 provides 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. The 4484PX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 128 MB of L3, plus a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice. The 3D V-Cache is a key architectural feature that boosts performance in cache-sensitive workloads like physics and prime number finding.

The 7352 uses four 74 mm² dies, while the 4484PX uses two 71 mm² dies. Transistor counts are not directly comparable in the available data, but the process shrink from 7 nm to 5 nm allows the 4484PX to pack more performance into fewer cores.

Memory architecture is dramatically different. The 7352 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 4484PX supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which suits their server/workstation market segment.

PCIe capabilities also diverge. The 7352 offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), making it a strong choice for systems with many expansion cards or NVMe drives. The 4484PX offers Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only), which provides higher per-lane bandwidth but far fewer total lanes.

The 4484PX includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the 7352 has no integrated graphics. The 4484PX is socketed on AMD Socket AM5, while the 7352 uses AMD Socket SP3. Production status is Active for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The cores and threads differ by a factor of two: the 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads, the 4484PX has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the 7352 and 4.40 GHz for the 4484PX. Boost clocks are 3.20 GHz and 5.60 GHz, respectively. The TDP is 155 W for the 7352 and 120 W for the 4484PX, meaning the higher-clocked chip actually draws less power.

Socket types differ: SP3 for the 7352, AM5 for the 4484PX. The process node is 7 nm versus 5 nm. L1 cache per core is 96 KB versus 64 KB. L2 cache per core is 512 KB versus 1 MB. L3 cache arrangement differs: 32 MB per die with 128 MB total for the 7352, versus 128 MB shared plus a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice for the 4484PX.

Memory support changes from DDR4 to DDR5. Memory bus width changes from eight-channel to dual-channel. Memory bandwidth drops from 204.8 GB/s to 83.2 GB/s. PCIe generation moves from Gen 4 to Gen 5, while lane count drops from 128 to 28. The 4484PX adds integrated Radeon Graphics; the 7352 has none. Release dates are 2019-08-06 for the 7352 and 2024-05-20 for the 4484PX. The launch MSRP is $1350 for the 7352 and $599 for the 4484PX.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 4484PX wins in nearly every compute-heavy scenario. Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests, PassMark multithread, integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, prime number finding, random string sorting, and physics simulation all go to the 4484PX. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering, simulation, scientific computing, and any workload that rewards high clock speeds and the 3D V-Cache. The 52% lead in single-thread performance and 45.6% lead in physics are decisive for interactive or latency-sensitive applications.

The AMD EPYC 7352 wins specifically in data compression and data encryption. These workloads rely on moving large amounts of data through memory, and the 7352’s 204.8 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the 4484PX’s 83.2 GB/s. If a server primarily handles compressed archives, database compression, or encrypted data streams, the 7352’s 9.5% compression lead and 21.7% encryption lead matter more than its multi-core deficits.

The 7352 also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 28 Gen 5 lanes. For systems that need many GPUs, NVMe drives, or network cards, the 7352 provides far more expansion capacity. The 4484PX’s Gen 5 lanes offer higher per-lane speed, but the total lane count is a limiting factor for heavily populated servers.

The 4484PX’s integrated Radeon Graphics can handle basic display output without a discrete GPU, which simplifies workstation builds. The 7352 requires a separate graphics adapter. The 4484PX also uses the AM5 socket, which is a more mainstream platform, while the 7352 uses the server-focused SP3 socket.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 4484PX if your work is compute-bound and benefits from high clocks, modern architecture, and 3D V-Cache. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, including every Cinebench test, and leads by 52% in single-thread performance and 45.6% in physics. It also has a lower TDP of 120 W versus 155 W, makes use of DDR5 memory, and includes integrated graphics. The 20.1% multi-core lead in Cinebench is especially notable given the 4484PX has half the cores of the 7352.

Choose the AMD EPYC 7352 if your workload is dominated by data compression or encryption, or if you need massive memory bandwidth and PCIe expansion. It wins compression by 9.5% and encryption by 21.7%, and its eight-channel DDR4 memory at 204.8 GB/s is the clear reason. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide room for extensive peripheral configurations that the 4484PX cannot match with only 28 Gen 5 lanes.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 68118 for the 7352 versus 67822 for the 4484PX — and both sit in the 96th percentile. The decision comes down to workload shape, not overall performance. The 4484PX is the general-purpose performer with superior speed in most tasks; the 7352 is the specialized data-movement chip with clear wins in bandwidth-bound operations. For most users, the 4484PX’s broader benchmark dominance makes it the safer pick. For storage and encryption-heavy servers, the 7352’s wins are too large to ignore.