AMD EPYC 4585PX vs AMD EPYC 9384X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9384X and the AMD EPYC 4585PX represent two distinct philosophies within AMD's server lineup, separated by a generation, a process node, and a fundamental difference in core count and platform scope. The data in the database shows a surprising split: the older, higher-core-count 9384X wins the majority of the workload tests, yet the newer 4585PX dominates single-thread performance and edges out a victory in the Cinebench suite. This makes for a nuanced comparison where the "better" processor depends entirely on the specific workload, rather than a simple generational victory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9384X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4585PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 9384X offers double the core and thread count of its counterpart.

Q: In which benchmark does the AMD EPYC 4585PX show its largest single-test advantage?

A: The 4585PX's biggest win is in the Passmark single-thread test, where it scores 4538 compared to the 9384X's 3015, a significant 33.6% advantage for the newer processor.

Q: What is the largest performance margin for the AMD EPYC 9384X?

A: The 9384X's most dominant performance is in the Passmark data encryption test, where its score of 72631 is 53.8% higher than the 4585PX's 47224. It also shows a 41.1% lead in Passmark physics.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The AMD EPYC 4585PX wins this test with a score of 60451, beating the 9384X's 59215 by a margin of 2%. This is notable because the 9384X has twice the core count.

Q: What are the different sockets and memory configurations for these CPUs?

A: The EPYC 9384X uses the AMD Socket SP5 platform with a twelve-channel memory bus, whereas the EPYC 4585PX uses the AMD Socket AM5 platform with a dual-channel memory bus. This results in a large difference in theoretical memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s for the 9384X versus 89.6 GB/s for the 4585PX.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock and what is the difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 4585PX has a much higher boost clock of 5.70 GHz compared to the 9384X's 3.90 GHz. Its base clock of 4.30 GHz is also higher than the 9384X's 3.10 GHz base clock.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial. The EPYC 9384X is built on the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa-X, and belongs to the EPYC 9004 series. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC 4585PX, on the other hand, is a Zen 5 part, codenamed Grado, from the EPYC 4005 series, using a more advanced 4 nm process node, also from TSMC. This process shrink is a key factor in the 4585PX's ability to hit much higher clock speeds while maintaining a lower TDP.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a story of different design goals. The 9384X integrates a massive 90,160 million transistors across an 8x 72 mm² die configuration, a design necessary to accommodate its 32 cores and enormous cache. The 4585PX, with 16 cores, uses 16,630 million transistors on a 2x 70.6 mm² configuration. The 9384X's cache hierarchy is its defining feature, with 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The 4585PX offers a comparatively modest 128 MB of L3 cache, though it does have a larger L1 cache per core at 80 KB versus the 9384X's 64 KB.

Platform support further separates them. The 9384X is a behemoth for the SP5 socket, featuring 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and a twelve-channel memory bus designed for maximum bandwidth. The 4585PX is built for the AM5 socket, with 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and a dual-channel memory bus, reflecting its positioning as a more streamlined server or workstation part. Notably, the 4585PX is the only one of the two with an integrated Radeon Graphics solution, as the 9384X has no integrated graphics listed. Both support ECC memory and DDR5, and both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database reveal a clear and fascinating split. The AMD EPYC 4585PX wins every single Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core variants. The margins are consistent, hovering around 2% to 2.1%. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 4585PX scores 60451 against the 9384X's 59215. This is a remarkable result for a processor with half the cores and threads, underscoring the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture and its high clock speeds. Even in the Passmark single-thread test, the 4585PX is decisively ahead, scoring 4538 to the 9384X's 3015, a 33.6% lead that highlights the per-core performance gap.

However, the AMD EPYC 9384X dominates the rest of the Passmark suite, which tends to scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its victories are often by wide margins. For example, it leads by 53.8% in data encryption, 41.1% in physics, and 26.6% in data compression. In integer math, the 9384X scores 297833 versus 248563, a 19.8% advantage. Even in floating-point math, where its 768 MB of L3 cache provides a massive advantage, it wins by 14%. The only close Passmark win for the 9384X is in the multithread test, where it scores 69665 against the 4585PX's 68908, a slim 1.1% margin.

This data paints a picture of two different performance profiles. The 4585PX is a frequency and IPC monster, excelling in latency-sensitive and lightly-threaded tasks. The 9384X is a throughput champion, leveraging its core count, massive cache, and wide memory bus to crush heavily parallel workloads. The final tally in the database has the 9384X winning 9 of the 17 head-to-head tests, with the 4585PX winning 8, but the nature of those wins is more important than the count.

Specification Differences

The specifications of these two CPUs diverge on nearly every major point. The most obvious difference is the core and thread count, with the 9384X offering 32 cores and 64 threads versus the 4585PX's 16 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds are also in stark contrast: the 9384X has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost of 3.90 GHz, while the 4585PX operates at a base of 4.30 GHz and a boost of 5.70 GHz.

The TDP ratings reflect the performance goals, with the 9384X drawing 320 W compared to the 4585PX's 170 W. The cache configurations are fundamentally different, with the 9384X featuring 768 MB of shared L3 cache and the 4585PX offering 128 MB. L1 cache also differs, at 64 KB per core for the 9384X and 80 KB per core for the 4585PX. The platforms are entirely separate, with the 9384X using the SP5 socket and the 4585PX using the AM5 socket. Memory support differs in channel count, with the 9384X using a twelve-channel bus and the 4585PX using a dual-channel bus, leading to a bandwidth disparity of 460.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lane count also favors the 9384X heavily, at 128 lanes versus 24 lanes. The architectures are Zen 4 versus Zen 5, and the process nodes are 5 nm versus 4 nm. The 4585PX is the only one with integrated graphics, and its release date is later, in May 2025, compared to the 9384X's June 2023. The 9384X has a launch MSRP of $5529, while the 4585PX has a launch MSRP of $699.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9384X is the clear winner in scenarios that demand maximum throughput and data processing. Its dominance in data encryption, with a 53.8% lead, and data compression, with a 26.6% lead, makes it the obvious choice for database workloads, large-scale virtualization, and any application that can utilize its 32 cores and 768 MB of L3 cache. The 41.1% advantage in the physics test suggests it excels in scientific simulations and complex calculations. Its massive memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s and 128 PCIe lanes also make it superior for high-performance computing and storage servers where data movement is the bottleneck. For heavy multi-threaded workloads that can saturate all cores, the 9384X is the stronger part.

The AMD EPYC 4585PX wins where per-core performance and low latency are paramount. Its 33.6% lead in single-thread performance and its consistent 2% edge across all Cinebench tests, including multi-core, indicate it is better suited for lightly-threaded applications like web serving, network appliances, and edge computing. Its high clock speeds, reaching 5.70 GHz, make it ideal for tasks where responsiveness is key. The lower TDP of 170 W and the AM5 platform also suggest it is designed for environments where power efficiency and space are at a premium, such as in dense, single-socket servers. Its integrated Radeon Graphics could also be a deciding factor for systems that do not require a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The choice between these two processors is a matter of workload priority, not a simple generational upgrade. The data shows the AMD EPYC 9384X is the champion of raw throughput and parallel processing. It is the superior choice for compute-intensive enterprise workloads, large databases, and virtualized environments where its core count, massive L3 cache, and high memory bandwidth translate directly into performance. Its wins in the Passmark suite are decisive, often by double-digit percentages.

The AMD EPYC 4585PX is the champion of efficiency and single-thread responsiveness. It is the better option for applications that are latency-bound or that require the highest possible clock speeds. Its ability to match or beat a 32-core processor in the Cinebench multi-core tests, despite having only 16 cores, confirms the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture. It is the clear choice for edge servers, network functions, and other workloads where low power consumption and a compact footprint are critical, and where its integrated graphics can be utilized. The 4585PX is the modern, efficient engine, while the 9384X is the heavyweight processor built for maximum data-crunching power.