AMD EPYC 4565P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4565P and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 are both Zen 5 parts built on the same 4 nm TSMC process, but they target completely different segments: a server/workstation socket versus a mobile platform. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has a few surprises that make it more than just a low-power afterthought. This analysis breaks down exactly where each chip wins, what the architecture differences mean, and who should buy which.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4565P dominates the head-to-head results, winning 10 of the 11 benchmark comparisons. The largest margin comes in passmark_integer_math, where the EPYC scores 250,683 against 152,414 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 — a 64.5% advantage. This is a massive lead in raw integer throughput, reflecting the EPYC's 16 cores versus 12, and its higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz versus 5.00 GHz.

Data encryption shows an even steeper percentage gap: the EPYC's 48,268 score beats the Ryzen's 27,784 by 73.7%. That is the single biggest relative win for the EPYC in the entire comparison. Similarly, floating-point math goes heavily to the EPYC at 152,003 versus 99,548, a 52.7% delta. These three workloads — integer math, encryption, and floating-point — are the core of server-side processing, and the EPYC 4565P is simply in another class here.

The multi-threaded PassMark score also favors the EPYC decisively: 63,474 versus 45,231, a 40.3% lead. Data compression follows the same pattern, with 860,786 versus 554,760 (55.2% ahead), and extended instructions show a 40.9% gap (64,345 vs 45,666). Random string sorting is another EPYC win, 81,318 vs 59,487 (36.7% ahead). Even the physics test, which is often more memory-latency sensitive, goes to the EPYC, though by a narrow 3.1% margin (2,976 vs 2,887).

Single-thread performance is a notable EPYC win too: 4,712 versus 3,927, a 20% delta. That is a substantial single-core advantage, driven by the EPYC's higher boost clock. This matters for lightly threaded workloads and everyday responsiveness, not just server tasks.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 wins exactly one test: passmark_find_prime_numbers, scoring 320 versus 294. That is an 8.1% victory for the Ryzen. Prime number finding is a workload that scales with certain instruction efficiencies and cache behavior, and the Ryzen's quad-channel LPDDR5X memory with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth clearly helps here. The EPYC's dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s is a bottleneck in this specific test, despite its higher core count.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this split: the EPYC 4565P sits at 95,764, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 trails at 90,541. Both are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, but the EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (0.3% above the EPYC) and the AMD EPYC 9175F (0.2% below), putting it in a tightly contested high-end group. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 654, which is 0.2% above it — a much closer race than the EPYC's margins.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the EPYC 4565P is the performance king in nearly every measurable category. If you need maximum throughput in integer math, encryption, compression, or multi-threaded rendering, the EPYC 4565P is the obvious pick. Its 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with a 5.70 GHz boost, make it a brute-force solution for heavy compute. The 64 MB of shared L3 cache also helps keep data close to the cores, which likely contributes to its strong showing in data compression and encryption.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has one clear niche: prime number calculation. The 8.1% win in that test suggests its quad-channel memory architecture provides a bandwidth advantage that matters for this specific workload. The 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is nearly 3x the EPYC's 89.6 GB/s, and for workloads that are memory-bound rather than core-bound, that bandwidth wins. However, this is a narrow victory — one test out of eleven.

Outside of that, the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is competitive only in the physics test, where it trails by just 3.1%, and in single-thread performance, where it's 20% behind. The Ryzen's lower TDP of 55 watts versus the EPYC's 170 watts suggests it would generate far less heat and draw less power, but the benchmark data does not include power efficiency metrics, so any such conclusion is qualitative.

For a use-case split: the EPYC 4565P is for servers and workstations where multi-threaded compute is the priority. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is a mobile chip, likely for high-end laptops, where the 12 cores and 24 threads still deliver respectable performance but with a focus on memory bandwidth over raw core count.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Zen 5 architecture using TSMC's 4 nm process, and both use the same die size of 2x 70.6 mm². The core design is identical: 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. Both share 64 MB of L3 cache. The fundamental difference is in how these cores are configured and packaged.

The EPYC 4565P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads. That is a 33% core advantage for the EPYC, which directly explains its multi-threaded wins. The EPYC also runs at higher clocks: 4.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost, versus 3.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost for the Ryzen. These clock differences are significant for both single-thread and multi-thread performance.

The sockets are completely different: the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses AMD Socket FP11. This means they are not interchangeable — the EPYC is a desktop/workstation socket part, while the FP11 is a mobile BGA socket. The market segments confirm this: Server/Workstation versus Mobile.

Memory support is a major architectural split. The EPYC 4565P uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 392 uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. That is a 2.9x bandwidth advantage for the Ryzen, which explains its win in the prime numbers test. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe generations differ too: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 24 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The EPYC's newer PCIe standard and more lanes are better suited for server expansion cards, NVMe storage, and GPUs.

Integrated graphics also differ: the EPYC 4565P has Radeon Graphics, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has the Radeon 8060S. No benchmark data is provided for these iGPUs, so any comparison is qualitative.

Transistor counts are listed only for the EPYC (16,630 million); the Ryzen's count is not provided. The EPYC's transistor count is notably high, likely due to the 16 cores and large cache.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 4565P is the superior processor for compute-heavy workloads. It wins 10 of 11 benchmarks, with margins ranging from 3.1% (physics) to 73.7% (encryption). If your priority is multi-threaded performance, integer math, or data compression, the EPYC 4565P is the only choice here. Its 96th percentile ranking and position among rivals like the AMD EPYC 9175F and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 confirm it is a top-tier part.

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 is not a bad chip — it also sits in the 96th percentile — but it is outclassed in almost every direct comparison. Its one win in prime number finding shows that memory bandwidth can beat core count in specific scenarios, but that is a niche case. For most users, the 20% single-thread deficit and 40.3% multi-thread deficit make the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 a poor choice for a primary workstation.

Who should pick the EPYC 4565P? Anyone building a server or workstation for rendering, data processing, encryption, or virtualization. The 16 cores and 32 threads, combined with Gen 5 PCIe and high boost clocks, make it a versatile and powerful choice. The launch MSRP is $589.

Who should pick the Ryzen AI Max+ 392? Users who need a mobile platform with exceptional memory bandwidth for memory-bound tasks, or who prioritize low power consumption (55 W TDP) over raw compute. It is also a solid option for workloads that benefit from the quad-channel LPDDR5X, such as large in-memory databases or certain scientific simulations. But for general compute, the EPYC 4565P wins outright.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 4565P wins 10 of 11 head-to-head benchmarks, with the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 winning only the passmark_find_prime_numbers test.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in passmark_data_encryption, where the EPYC 4565P scores 48,268 versus 27,784, a 73.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 beat the EPYC in any meaningful workload?

A: Yes, it wins passmark_find_prime_numbers by 8.1% (320 vs 294), likely due to its 256.0 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth versus the EPYC's 89.6 GB/s dual-channel.

Q: How do their single-thread performances compare?

A: The EPYC 4565P leads single-thread performance with a score of 4,712 versus 3,927, a 20% advantage.

Q: Are the two CPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both use TSMC's 4 nm process and Zen 5 architecture, with the same die size of 2x 70.6 mm².

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 4565P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ 392 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4565P | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 392 |

|---------------|----------------|----------------------|

| Cores | 16 | 12 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 4.30 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 170 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| Codename | Grado | Strix Halo |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | Not listed |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 24 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Radeon 8060S |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2025-05-12 | 2026-01-05 |

| Launch MSRP | $589 | Not listed |

| Part Number | 100-000001559 | 100-000001979 |