AMD EPYC 4584PX vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 4584PX and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 are both 16-core, 32-thread AMD processors, but they are engineered for entirely different arenas. The EPYC 4584PX is a server/workstation part built on the Zen 4 architecture for Socket AM5, while the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is a mobile processor on the newer Zen 5 architecture for Socket FP11. Benchmark results show a decisive split: the EPYC wins 12 of 15 head-to-head comparisons, but the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 takes the single-thread crown in Passmark and edges out a narrow victory in one Cinebench multi-core test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the data is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench. The EPYC 4584PX scores 7,274 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is a massive 261.4% ahead of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 2,012.5. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC leads with 733 versus 306, a 139.5% advantage. These are not marginal wins; they are category-defining differences. The EPYC's boost clock of 5.70 GHz, combined with the older but higher-clocked Zen 4 design, clearly dominates the Ryzen part's 5.10 GHz boost in these specific rendering workloads.

Multi-core performance tells a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 4584PX scores 51,524, which is 47% ahead of the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 35,061. However, in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 actually wins, scoring 5,247 versus the EPYC's 5,193, a 1% edge. This suggests that the Ryzen's Zen 5 architecture scales better in legacy multi-threaded workloads, while the EPYC's superior sustained clock speeds and larger cache dominate in newer, more demanding multi-core tests.

The Passmark suite reveals a similar pattern of EPYC dominance. In data compression, the EPYC scores 741,648 versus 639,356, a 16% win. Data encryption shows a 39.8% advantage for the EPYC (45,902 vs. 32,840). Physics simulation is another strong EPYC victory, with 4,574 versus 3,189, a 43.4% lead. Prime number finding sees the EPYC ahead by 55.3% (441 vs. 284). These are all compute-heavy, multi-threaded tasks where the EPYC's 128 MB of shared L3 cache and higher clock speeds provide a clear edge.

There is one notable exception to the EPYC sweep. In Passmark single-thread, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 scores 4,078 versus the EPYC's 3,795, a 6.9% win. This is a meaningful result because it shows that the newer Zen 5 architecture, despite lower clock speeds, can outpace the older Zen 4 design in certain single-threaded integer workloads. The Ryzen part also wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core as noted, giving it 3 total wins to the EPYC's 12. The EPYC's wins in floating-point math (0.8% ahead), integer math (5.9%), extended instructions (3.3%), multithread (12.8%), and random string sorting (25%) round out its near-total dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 4584PX is the clear choice for sustained, high-throughput server and workstation tasks. Its 47% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 43.4% lead in Passmark physics indicate superior performance in modern rendering, simulation, and scientific computing workloads. The 39.8% advantage in data encryption makes it a stronger pick for security-focused applications, while the 16% lead in data compression benefits database and archival operations. The EPYC's 5.70 GHz boost clock and 128 MB L3 cache are the key enablers here, allowing it to maintain high performance across many threads simultaneously. It sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 83,090, placing it just 0.1% above the AMD EPYC 9135 and 0.9% below the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.

The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is a different beast. Despite its 55W TDP—less than half the EPYC's 120W—it manages to win Passmark single-thread with a 6.9% margin. This makes it a superior option for lightly-threaded, latency-sensitive applications that rely on single-core speed, such as certain database queries, legacy software, or interactive workloads. Its 1% win in Cinebench R15 multi-core also suggests it handles older multi-threaded code more efficiently. The Ryzen part's 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, enabled by its quad-channel LPDDR5X bus, is a major advantage over the EPYC's 83.2 GB/s dual-channel DDR5, making it potentially better suited for memory-bandwidth-bound tasks like large matrix operations or AI inference, despite its lower raw compute scores. It rests in the 95th percentile, with an average score of 80,762, essentially tied with the Intel Xeon 638 (0% delta).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is significant. The EPYC 4584PX is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Raphael, using TSMC's 5 nm process. It features 16 cores and 32 threads with a base clock of 4.20 GHz and boost of 5.70 GHz. The cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache, which includes a 1x 64MB 3D V-Cache slice. This large cache is a key differentiator, providing a substantial advantage in data-heavy workloads. The EPYC uses a dual-die design with a total of 17,840 million transistors spread across 2x 71 mm² dies.

The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is built on the newer Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, using TSMC's 4 nm process. It also has 16 cores and 32 threads, but with a lower base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost of 5.10 GHz. Its cache is smaller: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3, with no 3D V-Cache. The Ryzen part is a single-die design, though the transistor count and die size are not listed. It supports LPDDR5X memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the EPYC's 83.2 GB/s.

Other differences are clear. The EPYC uses Socket AM5 with PCIe Gen 5 (28 lanes), while the Ryzen uses Socket FP11 with PCIe Gen 4 (16 lanes). The EPYC has Radeon Graphics integrated, while the Ryzen has Radeon 8060S. Both support ECC memory and have locked multipliers. The EPYC was released on 2024-05-20, while the Ryzen came later on 2025-01-05. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $699, whereas the Ryzen is a mobile part with no listed MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX has a boost clock of 5.70 GHz, significantly higher than the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 5.10 GHz.

Q: How much larger is the EPYC's L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 4584PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly double the 64 MB shared L3 cache found on the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, it wins 3 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks. It takes Passmark single-thread (4,078 vs. 3,795, a 6.9% lead), Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,247 vs. 5,193, a 1% lead), and the duplicate Passmark singlethread test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus delivering 256.0 GB/s, while the EPYC 4584PX has a dual-channel DDR5 bus delivering 83.2 GB/s. The Ryzen part offers over three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a newer architecture?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, while the EPYC 4584PX uses the older Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 4584PX has an average benchmark score of 83,090, placing it in the 96th percentile. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has an average score of 80,762, placing it in the 95th percentile. The EPYC is roughly 2.9% ahead on average.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 4584PX | AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 |

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

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Raphael | Strix Halo |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.70 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 120 W | 55 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | AMD Socket FP11 |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 64 KB | 80 KB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 128 MB | 64 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 28 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics | Radeon 8060S |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-05-20 | 2025-01-05 |

| Transistors | 17,840 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 2x 71 mm² | Not listed |