AMD EPYC 4564P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4564P and the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer. The EPYC 4564P is a server/workstation processor built for sustained throughput, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a mobile part with a much lower power envelope. Benchmark data shows a decisive performance hierarchy, with the EPYC 4564P winning all 11 head-to-head comparisons. This analysis quantifies the performance deltas, examines the architectural reasons for the gap, and outlines the specification differences that define their respective market positions.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 4564P across every benchmark in the comparison set. The most significant victory occurs in the PassMark random string sorting test, where the EPYC 4564P scores 103,202 against the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s 59,487, a 73.5% advantage. This indicates a substantial lead in memory-bound and data-shuffling workloads, likely reflecting the combination of higher core count and the server platform’s memory subsystem characteristics.

Data encryption is another area of pronounced superiority. The EPYC 4564P scores 50,708, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 manages only 27,784, resulting in an 82.5% delta. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison, suggesting that the EPYC’s architecture and higher thread count provide a significant edge in cryptographic operations. Similarly, integer math performance shows a 50.1% lead for the EPYC 4564P, with scores of 228,761 versus 152,414, and floating-point math follows with a 41.7% advantage (141,017 vs. 99,548).

Multi-threaded workloads reinforce the pattern. The EPYC 4564P achieves a PassMark multithread score of 64,357, which is 42.3% higher than the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s 45,231. This makes sense given the EPYC’s 16 cores and 32 threads versus 12 cores and 24 threads for the mobile chip. Data compression also favors the server part, with a score of 858,105 against 554,760, a 54.7% delta. The EPYC 4564P also leads in extended instructions (63,136 vs. 45,666, a 38.3% delta), prime number finding (365 vs. 320, a 14.1% delta), and physics simulations (3,392 vs. 2,887, a 17.5% delta).

Even in single-threaded performance, where the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s Zen 5 architecture might be expected to compete, the EPYC 4564P comes out ahead. The PassMark single-thread score is 4,292 for the EPYC 4564P versus 3,927 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, a 9.3% margin. This is notable because the EPYC’s Zen 4 cores are running at a much higher base clock of 4.50 GHz versus the Ryzen’s 3.20 GHz, and a boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz, which appears to offset any architectural IPC advantage from the newer Zen 5 core.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall performance gap. The EPYC 4564P has an average score of 95,183, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average score of 90,541, also in the 96th percentile, but its nearest rivals tell a different story. The EPYC 4564P is 0.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9175F (95,615) and 0.6% behind the AMD EPYC 4565P (95,764), while being 1.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6520P (93,786). In contrast, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 654 (90,717) and 0.7% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX (91,199), while leading the Intel Xeon w7-2575X by 2.7% and the Intel Xeon 6736P by 3.0%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 4564P is the superior performer in every measured category. For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, data encryption, or memory-intensive sorting, the EPYC 4564P offers massive advantages, ranging from 14.1% to 82.5% over the Ryzen AI Max+ 392. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with higher clock speeds, provide a clear path to higher productivity in server and workstation tasks. The EPYC 4564P’s 96th percentile ranking and its proximity to the AMD EPYC 9175F and AMD EPYC 4565P in average score confirm its position as a high-end server part.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392, while also ranking in the 96th percentile, is defined by its efficiency rather than raw performance. Its 55-watt TDP and mobile FP11 socket indicate a design targeting laptops and compact systems where power consumption is a primary constraint. The data shows it is competitive with mid-range Xeon processors, sitting just 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon 654, but it cannot match the EPYC 4564P’s output. Its lower scores in every benchmark, including a 9.3% deficit in single-threaded performance, mean that even for lightly threaded tasks, the EPYC 4564P is the better choice when power is not a limiting factor.

Strictly from the data, the choice is clear. If the priority is maximum compute performance for servers, workstations, or any scenario where the 170-watt TDP is acceptable, the AMD EPYC 4564P is the only logical option. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is the appropriate selection only when the user requires a processor for a mobile form factor with a 55-watt power budget, accepting a significant performance trade-off. There is no benchmark category where the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 demonstrates a performance advantage, making the EPYC 4564P the definitive winner for raw processing power.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 4564P is significantly faster, scoring 64,357 in the PassMark multithread test compared to 45,231 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, a 42.3% difference.

Q: Is the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 better at single-threaded tasks?

A: No. The EPYC 4564P wins the PassMark single-thread test with a score of 4,292 versus 3,927 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, a 9.3% advantage.

Q: How large is the performance gap in data compression?

A: The EPYC 4564P scores 858,105 in PassMark data compression, which is 54.7% higher than the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s 554,760.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The EPYC 4564P has an average benchmark score of 95,183, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has an average score of 90,541.

Q: Which processor is better for data encryption workloads?

A: The EPYC 4564P is vastly superior, with a PassMark data encryption score of 50,708 compared to 27,784 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392, an 82.5% lead.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the EPYC 4564P’s average score is substantially higher.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The AMD EPYC 4564P features 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC 4564P operates at a base clock of 4.50 GHz with a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, whereas the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 runs at a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost of 5.00 GHz. The thermal design power is also a major distinction, with the EPYC 4564P rated at 170 watts and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 at 55 watts.

The processors use different sockets: the EPYC 4564P is built for AMD Socket AM5, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11. Memory support differs as well, with the EPYC 4564P supporting DDR5 on a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 supporting LPDDR5X on a quad-channel bus with 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator, with the EPYC 4564P offering Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only) versus the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The integrated graphics also differ: the EPYC 4564P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 features a Radeon 8060S. The EPYC 4564P has a launch MSRP of $699, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has no launch MSRP listed. The release dates are different, with the EPYC 4564P launching on 2024-05-20 and the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 on 2026-01-05. Finally, the part numbers are distinct: 100-000001476 for the EPYC and 100-000001979 for the Ryzen.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is defined by the core microarchitecture and process node. The AMD EPYC 4564P is based on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, and is fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. It uses a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 71 mm² and contains 13,140 million transistors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392, conversely, is based on the newer Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, and is fabricated on a 4 nm process, also by TSMC. Its dual-die design measures 2x 70.6 mm², though transistor count is not specified.

Cache configurations reveal a key difference in the L1 cache. The EPYC 4564P has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core. Both share 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L1 cache in the Zen 5 part suggests a different core design, but the EPYC’s higher clocks compensate in practice. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache.

The memory architecture is a significant point of divergence. The EPYC 4564P uses a dual-channel DDR5 memory bus, providing a theoretical bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus, offering a much higher theoretical bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. This is a notable advantage for the mobile part in memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios, although the benchmark data shows the EPYC 4564P still wins in the tested workloads, likely due to its higher core count and clock speeds. Both processors support ECC memory.

The market segments are clearly distinct: the EPYC 4564P is aimed at the Server/Workstation segment, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a Mobile part. This is reflected in the socket types and TDPs. The EPYC 4564P’s 170-watt TDP allows for aggressive clock speeds and sustained performance, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392’s 55-watt TDP prioritizes power efficiency for battery-powered devices. The PCIe generation also differs, with the EPYC 4564P supporting the faster Gen 5 standard, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is limited to Gen 4.