AMD EPYC 4484PX vs AMD EPYC 9184X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9184X and the AMD EPYC 4484PX are both 96th-percentile server/workstation parts, yet they achieve that status through fundamentally different designs. The 9184X is a 16-core, 320W Genoa-X processor with a massive 768 MB of L3 cache, while the 4484PX is a 12-core, 120W Raphael part with a 5.60 GHz boost clock and a 128 MB L3 cache. Benchmark results show a clear split: the 4484PX wins the majority of the head-to-head tests (11 of 17), but the 9184X secures decisive victories in specific workloads that leverage its larger cache and higher core count. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical—68202 for the 9184X versus 67822 for the 4484PX—but the distribution of those scores tells a more nuanced story.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the EPYC 4484PX is the overall performance leader in most general-purpose and single-threaded tasks. It wins every Cinebench test (R15, R20, and R23, both single- and multi-core) by a consistent 5.7% margin. It also takes PassMark’s floating-point math, integer math, and multithread tests, suggesting a broad advantage in everyday compute and lightly threaded applications. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4119 is 31.5% higher than the 9184X’s 2822, making it the clear choice for latency-sensitive, single-core workloads.

Conversely, the EPYC 9184X dominates in memory-bandwidth-sensitive and cache-heavy tasks. Its most dramatic win is in PassMark physics, where it scores 6674 versus the 4484PX’s 4938—a 35.2% lead. It also wins random string sorting by 11.5% and find prime numbers by 9.4%. These results point to workloads that benefit from the 9184X’s 768 MB L3 cache, which reduces memory latency for large working sets. The 9184X also edges out the 4484PX in data compression (1.9%), data encryption (2.4%), and extended instructions (0.6%), though those margins are narrow.

The wins are not evenly distributed by core count. Despite having 16 cores versus 12, the 9184X loses the multi-core Cinebench tests, indicating that the 4484PX’s higher clock speeds (4.40 GHz base, 5.60 GHz boost) more than compensate for its two fewer cores in these workloads. However, the 9184X’s cache advantage flips the result in PassMark physics, where the 4484PX’s higher clocks cannot overcome the memory latency penalty.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The AMD EPYC 4484PX scores 4119 in PassMark single-thread, which is 31.5% higher than the EPYC 9184X’s 2822. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 6065 versus 5719.

Q: How do their multi-core scores compare?

A: The 4484PX leads in all Cinebench multi-core tests by 5.7%, including R23 with 42964 versus 40515. It also wins PassMark multithread with 50547 versus 47665.

Q: In which test does the 9184X have its largest advantage?

A: The 9184X wins PassMark physics by 35.2%, scoring 6674 against the 4484PX’s 4938. This is its largest margin across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The 9184X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 4484PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9184X’s cache is significantly larger.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The 4484PX boosts to 5.60 GHz, while the 9184X boosts to 4.20 GHz. The 4484PX also has a higher base clock at 4.40 GHz versus 3.55 GHz.

Q: Do they have the same memory bandwidth?

A: No. The 9184X supports twelve-channel memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 4484PX supports dual-channel memory with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is the 31.5% delta in PassMark single-thread, where the 4484PX’s 4119 dwarfs the 9184X’s 2822. This is not a small edge; it represents a fundamental difference in per-core performance, driven by the 4484PX’s higher boost clock and newer Raphael design. The Cinebench results reinforce this, with the 4484PX winning every iteration by exactly 5.7%, from R15 single-core (611 vs 576) to R23 multi-core (42964 vs 40515). The consistency of this margin across both single- and multi-core Cinebench tests suggests a uniform clock-speed advantage rather than a cache or core-count effect.

The 9184X fights back in PassMark physics, where its 6674 score is 35.2% higher than the 4484PX’s 4938. This is the largest delta in either direction in the entire benchmark suite. The physics test is known to stress memory latency and cache capacity, and the 9184X’s 768 MB L3 cache provides a decisive advantage. Similarly, random string sorting shows an 11.5% lead for the 9184X (79913 vs 71642), and find prime numbers shows a 9.4% lead (465 vs 425). These are not trivial margins; they indicate workloads where the 4484PX’s clock speed cannot compensate for its smaller cache.

In the middle ground, the results are tighter. The 9184X wins data compression (614873 vs 603371, +1.9%) and data encryption (37376 vs 36499, +2.4%), but these are narrow victories. The 4484PX wins floating-point math (96446 vs 95476, +1%) and integer math (162993 vs 157483, +3.4%), also by modest margins. The PassMark multithread test goes to the 4484PX with 50547 versus 47665, a 5.7% gap that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core results. Overall, the 4484PX wins 11 of 17 benchmarks, but the 9184X’s wins are often larger in magnitude, particularly in physics and random string sorting.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in core configuration and power. The 9184X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 4484PX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The 4484PX compensates with higher clocks: 4.40 GHz base and 5.60 GHz boost, versus 3.55 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost for the 9184X. The TDP difference is substantial—320W for the 9184X versus 120W for the 4484PX—which affects cooling and power delivery requirements.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The 9184X uses twelve-channel memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 4484PX uses dual-channel memory with 83.2 GB/s. The 9184X supports 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), whereas the 4484PX supports 28 Gen 5 lanes. The 4484PX includes integrated Radeon Graphics, while the 9184X has none. Socket types differ: the 9184X uses AMD Socket SP5, and the 4484PX uses AMD Socket AM5. The 9184X has a launch MSRP of $4928, while the 4484PX has a launch MSRP of $599.

Architecture Differences

Both are Zen 4 designs on TSMC’s 5 nm process, but they come from different families. The 9184X is codenamed Genoa-X and belongs to the EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) generation; the 4484PX is codenamed Raphael and belongs to the EPYC (Zen 4 (Raphael)) generation. The 9184X integrates 90,160 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, while the 4484PX has 17,840 million transistors on 2x 71 mm² dies.

Cache configurations differ dramatically. The 9184X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache with no 3D V-Cache slice listed. The 4484PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, which includes a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice. Both have 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The 9184X’s larger L3 cache is its distinguishing architectural feature, while the 4484PX relies on a smaller cache but higher clock speeds from its Raphael design. The 4484PX also includes integrated graphics, which the 9184X lacks, indicating a different target platform.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear decision based on workload type. Choose the AMD EPYC 9184X for cache-sensitive, multi-threaded server workloads. Its 35.2% lead in PassMark physics, 11.5% lead in random string sorting, and 9.4% lead in find prime numbers demonstrate a decisive advantage when working sets exceed the 4484PX’s 128 MB L3 cache. Its 768 MB L3 and twelve-channel memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth make it the stronger option for large in-memory databases or scientific simulations, despite losing the overall benchmark count.

Choose the AMD EPYC 4484PX for general-purpose, single-threaded, and clock-sensitive tasks. It wins every Cinebench test by 5.7% and PassMark single-thread by 31.5%, making it the superior choice for lightly threaded applications, real-time processing, or workloads that cannot use more than 12 cores. Its lower 120W TDP and AM5 socket also make it easier to integrate into standard systems, though the 9184X’s SP5 platform is the standard for dual-socket servers. The 4484PX’s 5.60 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison, and its wins in floating-point math and integer math confirm broad applicability. The 9184X wins 6 benchmarks and the 4484PX wins 11, but the magnitudes of the 9184X’s wins—especially in physics—are larger, so the final choice depends entirely on whether the workload fits in the 9184X’s massive cache.