AMD EPYC 7303 vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 and the AMD EPYC 7303 represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from the same manufacturer, one aimed at high-mobility computing and the other at dense server workloads. Despite their divergent targets, the benchmark data shows a fascinating overlap in overall capability, with the mobile part frequently outmaneuvering the server chip in general-purpose tasks while the EPYC flexes its muscle in specific, heavy-duty operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the comparison is the single-thread performance gap. In the PassMark single-thread test, the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 3914 against the EPYC 7303's 1460, a massive 168.1% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire dataset, reflecting the Ryzen's high-boost design. This advantage carries through the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Ryzen scores 4027 versus the EPYC's 3428, a 17.5% lead. The same 17.5% delta appears in Cinebench R20 single-core (1691 vs 1439) and Cinebench R15 single-core (405 vs 345).

The multi-core story is more nuanced, but still favors the mobile chip. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 scores 28529, which is 17.5% ahead of the EPYC 7303's 24286. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (11982 vs 10200, a 17.5% delta) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (2875 vs 2448, a 17.4% delta). The PassMark multithread test shows a similar result, with the Ryzen scoring 33689 against the EPYC's 28572, a 17.9% advantage.

The EPYC 7303’s victories are concentrated in specific computational workloads. The largest is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the EPYC scores 180 against the Ryzen's 125, a 30.6% advantage. It also wins in data encryption (25167 vs 21186, a 15.8% lead) and extended instructions (31603 vs 29351, a 7.1% lead). The EPYC's smallest win is in data compression, where it scores 428319 versus the Ryzen's 416331, a 2.8% edge.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 also dominates in floating-point math, scoring 74626 against the EPYC's 64940, a 14.9% lead. It wins integer math by a smaller margin (119521 vs 113422, a 5.4% delta), and random string sorting by 7.3% (45358 vs 42259). The physics test is close, with the Ryzen taking it 1843 to 1792, a 2.8% advantage. Overall, the Ryzen wins 13 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests, while the EPYC wins 4.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of use-case suitability. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is the clear winner for tasks that demand responsiveness and high-frequency execution. Its dominance in all Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, indicates it is the superior choice for rendering workloads, 3D modeling, and any application that relies heavily on CPU compute per thread. Its strong showing in floating-point math (14.9% ahead) and integer math (5.4% ahead) confirms its versatility for scientific computing and general productivity. The 168.1% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the obvious pick for legacy software, scripting, and any workload that struggles to scale across cores. Its 17.9% lead in PassMark multithread also establishes it as a capable multitasker.

The AMD EPYC 7303, conversely, has a narrower but distinct set of strengths. Its 30.6% win in prime number finding highlights its capability in specific algorithmic workloads that benefit from its architecture. The 15.8% lead in data encryption makes it the stronger option for security-focused tasks, such as VPN termination, secure web serving, or database encryption. The 7.1% win in extended instructions suggests an edge in workloads using advanced CPU instruction sets, which can be critical in certain enterprise applications. Its 2.8% win in data compression is a modest but notable advantage for file servers and backup systems.

The overall scores reflect this split. The Ryzen has a higher average benchmark score of 47022, placing it in the 89th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC’s average score is 45960, also in the 89th percentile. The Ryzen's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-13700K (0.3% slower), the AMD Ryzen 9 5900 (0.1% slower), and the Intel Core i9-12900F (0.3% faster). The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-14700HX (0% delta) and the AMD EPYC 4364P (0% delta), showing it is a solid mid-pack performer in the broader database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is generational. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Point, and is part of the Ryzen AI PRO 300 generation. It uses a 4 nm process node at TSMC. The EPYC 7303 is based on the older Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, and belongs to the EPYC 7003 series. It uses a larger 7 nm process node, also from TSMC.

The core counts differ, with the Ryzen featuring 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Ryzen achieves higher multi-core scores in Cinebench, suggesting a substantial instructions-per-clock advantage for the newer Zen 5 design. The cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Ryzen uses an 80 KB L1 cache per core and a 1 MB L2 cache per core, with a total of 16 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC uses a smaller 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but it has a much larger 64 MB shared L3 cache.

The die configurations reflect their different markets. The Ryzen has a die size of 233 mm², while the EPYC has a configuration of 2x 81 mm². The EPYC also lists its transistor count at 8,300 million. The Ryzen integrates a Radeon 890M graphics solution, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz but a significantly lower boost clock of 3.40 GHz, which explains the Ryzen's single-thread dominance.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal the intended deployment of each chip. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is a mobile processor with a TDP of 28 watts, designed for thin-and-light laptops and is listed as an active production part. It uses an AMD Socket FP8. The EPYC 7303 is a server/workstation processor with a TDP of 130 watts, a much higher power envelope for sustained server loads, and uses an AMD Socket SP3.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X memory over a dual-channel bus, providing 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, which gives it a much higher theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs significantly: the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, a critical advantage for server expansion cards and NVMe storage arrays. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $604, while no launch price is recorded for the Ryzen. Both have locked multipliers and were released in different years, with the Ryzen releasing in 2025 and the EPYC in 2023.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is substantially faster in single-core tests. It scores 4027 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the EPYC 7303's 3428, a 17.5% advantage. In PassMark single-thread, the Ryzen scores 3914 versus 1460 for the EPYC, a 168.1% lead.

Q: Does the EPYC 7303 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7303 wins 4 of the 17 head-to-head tests. Its most significant wins are in PassMark find prime numbers (180 vs 125, a 30.6% lead), data encryption (25167 vs 21186, a 15.8% lead), extended instructions (31603 vs 29351, a 7.1% lead), and data compression (428319 vs 416331, a 2.8% lead).

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7303 has more, with 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The EPYC 7303 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s due to its eight-channel DDR4 support. The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 offers 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5/LPDDR5X interface.

Q: Which processor is better for rendering workloads?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 is better for rendering based on the Cinebench results. It leads the EPYC 7303 by 17.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (28529 vs 24286) and by the same margin in R20 and R15 multi-core tests.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 375 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the EPYC 7303 has a TDP of 130 watts, reflecting the mobile versus server design targets.