AMD EPYC 7F72 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly close contest between two processors from opposite ends of the AMD spectrum. The EPYC 7F72, a 24-core Zen 2 server part, and the Ryzen AI Max+ 395, a 16-core Zen 5 mobile part, split the head-to-head tests nearly evenly, with the EPYC securing 8 wins and the Ryzen taking 7.

The most dramatic victories belong to the EPYC 7F72 in single-threaded Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6328 against the Ryzen's 2044, a 209.6% advantage. Similarly, in Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC leads with 637 versus 316, a 101.6% margin. These are not small gaps; they represent a fundamental difference in how each processor handles lightly threaded workloads, likely due to the EPYC's older but higher-clocked Zen 2 architecture in this specific benchmark environment.

However, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 strikes back decisively in Cinebench R15 multi-core, scoring 5463 against the EPYC's 4518, a 17.3% advantage. This is counterintuitive given the EPYC's higher core count (24 versus 16). The Ryzen's newer Zen 5 architecture, with its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz, appears to compensate for the core deficit in this particular test. Yet in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC reverses the result, posting 44829 versus 35314, a 26.9% lead. The two Cinebench versions clearly stress different aspects of the chips, with R23 favoring the EPYC's large shared L3 cache.

In PassMark tests, the EPYC dominates several specialized workloads. Data compression shows the EPYC at 808795 versus 690650, a 17.1% win. Data encryption is a stronger EPYC result: 56261 versus 35455, a 58.7% margin. Prime number finding also favors the EPYC, 498 versus 303, a 64.4% advantage. Physics simulation goes to the EPYC at 6459 versus 3481, an 85.6% gap. Random string sorting shows the EPYC ahead at 102436 versus 76177, a 34.5% win.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins the remaining PassMark tests. Extended instructions go to the Ryzen, 56346 versus 46936, a 16.7% lead. Floating point math favors the Ryzen, 128682 versus 108437, a 15.7% margin. Integer math also goes to the Ryzen, 200665 versus 181103, a 9.7% advantage. The PassMark multithread test is close, with the Ryzen at 54934 versus 52740, a 4% edge. Single-thread PassMark is a clear Ryzen victory: 4147 versus 2384, a 42.5% lead.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals distinct workload profiles. The EPYC 7F72 excels in tasks that benefit from massive shared cache and memory bandwidth. Its 192 MB shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth make it formidable in data compression, encryption, and random string sorting. These are memory-intensive operations where the EPYC's large cache reduces latency and its wide memory bus sustains high throughput.

The EPYC also wins in physics simulation and prime number finding, suggesting it handles iterative, integer-heavy algorithmic workloads with strong efficiency. The Cinebench R23 multi-core result further confirms that, under sustained multi-threaded rendering, the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads provide a substantial advantage over the Ryzen's 16 cores and 32 threads.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 dominates in floating point and integer math, indicating its Zen 5 architecture brings superior per-core compute throughput. The extended instructions test, which often reflects SIMD and AVX capabilities, also goes to the Ryzen. Its 5.10 GHz boost clock gives it a clear edge in single-threaded PassMark, where it leads by 42.5%. The Ryzen's Cinebench R15 multi-core win suggests that, in shorter multi-threaded bursts, the higher clock speed can overcome the core count disadvantage.

For single-core performance, the Ryzen is the clear winner in PassMark (4147 versus 2384), but the EPYC wins both Cinebench single-core tests by enormous margins. This discrepancy likely stems from the EPYC's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus the Ryzen's 3.00 GHz, combined with different boost behavior under the Cinebench workload.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two very different deployment scenarios. The EPYC 7F72 is the choice for server and workstation workloads that rely on cache capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw core count. Its 96th percentile ranking versus all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 85072, places it slightly ahead of close rivals like the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (1.3% delta) and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (1.5% delta). For data compression, encryption, and physics simulation, the EPYC's wins are decisive and consistent.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395, ranking at the 95th percentile with an average score of 77740, is positioned for mobile and edge applications where single-thread speed and per-core efficiency matter more. It beats the Intel Core i9-14900K by 1.7% in average score, showing it competes with desktop-class parts. Its wins in floating point, integer math, and extended instructions make it suitable for scientific computing, financial modeling, and AI inference tasks that leverage SIMD capabilities.

The choice depends on workload priority. If the task involves large datasets, high concurrency, or memory-intensive algorithms, the EPYC 7F72's 26.9% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 58.7% lead in encryption make it the data-driven pick. If the workload is latency-sensitive, single-threaded, or relies on advanced instruction sets, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395's 42.5% lead in single-thread PassMark and 16.7% lead in extended instructions are compelling.

Neither processor is universally superior. The EPYC wins 8 tests, the Ryzen wins 7. The margin of victory matters: the EPYC's wins include several blowouts (209.6%, 101.6%, 85.6%), while the Ryzen's wins are more modest (42.5% being the largest). This suggests the EPYC has higher peak advantages in its favored domains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has an average benchmark score of 85072, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 77740. The EPYC ranks at the 96th percentile versus all CPUs, and the Ryzen ranks at the 95th percentile.

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

A: The EPYC 7F72 scores 44829, which is 26.9% higher than the Ryzen AI Max+ 395's 35314. This is one of the EPYC's largest wins in the head-to-head tests.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference in PassMark?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 4147 in PassMark single-thread, which is 42.5% higher than the EPYC 7F72's 2384. This is the Ryzen's largest margin of victory.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Ryzen wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 17.3%.

Q: How does the EPYC 7F72 compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has an average score of 85072, which is 1.3% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus's 84003. The EPYC also leads the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K by 1.5%.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The EPYC 7F72 supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports quad-channel LPDDR5X with 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen has higher theoretical bandwidth despite fewer memory channels.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The EPYC 7F72 uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Strix Halo, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm².

The core configurations differ significantly. The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Ryzen has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz, whereas the Ryzen runs at a 3.00 GHz base and boosts to 5.10 GHz. The Ryzen's much higher boost clock explains its single-thread PassMark advantage.

Cache layouts are fundamentally different. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's three times larger L3 cache is a key factor in its data compression and encryption wins.

Memory subsystems diverge sharply. The EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s. The Ryzen uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus, delivering 256.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The Ryzen's higher bandwidth helps its floating point and integer math performance.

PCIe connectivity is identical in generation (Gen 4), but the Ryzen lists 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC's lane count is not specified in the data. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely.

The sockets and market segments reveal the intended use cases. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3 and targets the Server/Workstation segment. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP11 and targets Mobile. Both are currently active in production. The EPYC launched on 2020-04-13, while the Ryzen launched on 2025-01-05, a gap of nearly five years.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC's part number is 100-000000141100-000000141WOF, and the Ryzen's is 100-000001099. The power envelopes differ substantially: the EPYC has a 240 W TDP, while the Ryzen has a 55 W TDP, though exact power figures are not part of the benchmark analysis.