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

# AMD EPYC 7F72 vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395: Benchmark Analysis

The AMD EPYC 7F72 and AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum, yet both deliver exceptional throughput in their respective domains. The EPYC 7F72, a Zen 2 Rome server part with 24 cores and 48 threads, targets sustained multi-threaded workloads in rack-mounted systems. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395, a Zen 5 Strix Halo mobile processor with 16 cores and 32 threads, brings high single-thread performance and integrated graphics to portable workstations. Benchmark data shows the EPYC wins 9 of 15 head-to-head tests, while the Ryzen AI wins 6, but the nature of those wins reveals a clear use-case split.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7F72 dominates in traditional server and workstation workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. It wins multi-core Cinebench tests, including R23 multi-core with a score of 44,829 versus 35,061 for the Ryzen AI, a 27.9% advantage. It also takes PassMark multithread at 52,740 versus 51,502, a narrower 2.4% edge, suggesting the Ryzen AI's newer architecture partially compensates for its 8-core deficit. The EPYC's dominance extends to data compression, encryption, and physics simulation, where it leads by 26.5%, 71.3%, and 102.5% respectively. These are workloads that benefit from the EPYC's 192 MB shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory interface.

The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins primarily in single-threaded and math-heavy integer/floating-point tasks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4,078 crushes the EPYC's 2,384, a 41.5% improvement. This is a massive gap, reflecting the Zen 5 architecture's superior IPC and the 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz. The Ryzen AI also wins floating-point math (120,533 vs 108,437, a 10% lead), integer math (190,720 vs 181,103, a 5% lead), and extended instructions (52,067 vs 46,936, a 9.9% lead). These wins indicate the Ryzen AI is better suited for real-time analytical workloads, scientific computing with heavy SIMD usage, and applications where per-thread performance matters more than raw core count.

Notably, the Ryzen AI wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,247 vs 4,518, a 13.9% advantage), an older benchmark that rewards high boost clocks and efficient scaling. This suggests that for short, bursty multi-threaded tasks, the Ryzen AI can outperform the EPYC despite having fewer cores. However, in R23 multi-core, the EPYC reverses this, indicating that sustained loads favor its larger core pool.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The EPYC 7F72 uses Zen 2, codenamed Rome, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm². It features 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses Zen 5, codenamed Strix Halo, on a more advanced 4 nm process, with 16 cores and 32 threads, a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. Transistor count and die size are not recorded for the Ryzen AI in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC allocates 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen AI has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 is designed to keep more working set in cache for database and virtualization workloads, while the Ryzen AI's larger per-core L2 (1 MB vs 512 KB) improves single-thread memory access latency.

Memory support is another critical divergence. The EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus, but achieves higher bandwidth at 256.0 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's socket is SP3 for server platforms, while the Ryzen AI's FP11 socket targets mobile devices. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen AI includes Radeon 8060S graphics, a significant feature for compact systems without discrete GPUs.

PCIe support is Gen 4 for both, but the Ryzen AI has only 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers full Gen 4 connectivity for multi-GPU and storage expansion. The EPYC's TDP is 240 W, reflecting its server orientation, whereas the Ryzen AI's TDP is just 55 W, enabling thin-and-light designs. The EPYC was released on 2020-04-13, while the Ryzen AI launched on 2025-01-05, showing a five-year architectural gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single-threaded victory belongs to the EPYC in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 6,328 versus 2,012.5 for the Ryzen AI, a 214.4% advantage. This result is surprising given the Ryzen AI's higher boost clock, but it likely reflects the EPYC's higher sustained single-core frequency under the benchmark's load conditions. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC also wins with 637 versus 306, a 108.2% margin. These results suggest the EPYC's Zen 2 cores, while older, are configured for maximum single-thread performance at the cost of power efficiency.

The Ryzen AI's strongest single-thread win is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4,078 versus 2,384, a 41.5% advantage. This discrepancy between Cinebench and PassMark single-thread scores highlights the different instruction mixes each benchmark uses; PassMark favors the Ryzen AI's newer SIMD and branch prediction, while Cinebench's rendering workload seems to favor the EPYC's higher voltage headroom.

In multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC's core advantage is clear. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the EPYC ahead by 27.9%, and PassMark data compression shows a 26.5% lead (808,795 vs 639,356). The EPYC also wins PassMark encryption by 71.3% (56,261 vs 32,840), a workload that scales with core count and cache size. Physics simulation is the EPYC's biggest multi-thread win, with a 102.5% lead (6,459 vs 3,189), likely due to the EPYC's 48 threads versus 32.

The Ryzen AI wins in floating-point and integer math, but by smaller margins. Floating-point math is 10% higher (120,533 vs 108,437), and integer math is 5% higher (190,720 vs 181,103). Extended instructions, which test AVX-512-like workloads, are 9.9% higher on the Ryzen AI (52,067 vs 46,936). These results indicate that the Ryzen AI's Zen 5 cores execute math operations more efficiently per clock, but the EPYC's extra cores still close the gap in many scenarios.

The PassMark multithread test is the closest contest, with the EPYC winning by just 2.4% (52,740 vs 51,502). This near-tie shows that the Ryzen AI's architectural efficiency nearly offsets its 8-core disadvantage in a broad multi-threaded workload. The EPYC wins random string sorting by 46% (102,436 vs 70,150), a test that benefits from the EPYC's large L3 cache. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen AI wins by 13.9%, which is the only multi-threaded test where it beats the EPYC, indicating that short-duration multi-threaded bursts favor the Ryzen AI's higher boost clocks.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these processors by workload type. For sustained multi-threaded server workloads, such as database processing, virtualization, encryption, and physics simulation, the AMD EPYC 7F72 is the superior choice. Its 24 cores and 48 threads deliver 27.9% higher Cinebench R23 multi-core scores and 71.3% higher encryption throughput, while its 192 MB L3 cache accelerates data compression by 26.5% and random string sorting by 46%. It also wins the PassMark multithread test, albeit narrowly, and dominates in physics with a 102.5% lead. Systems targeting rack-mount servers or high-core-count workstations should select the EPYC.

For single-threaded and math-intensive workloads, the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the better fit. Its PassMark single-thread score is 41.5% higher, and it wins floating-point, integer, and extended instruction tests by 5% to 10%. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core, making it suitable for interactive rendering and bursty multi-threaded tasks. The Ryzen AI's 55 W TDP and integrated Radeon 8060S graphics make it ideal for mobile workstations or compact desktops where space and power are constrained. Its 256.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, despite a quad-channel bus, exceeds the EPYC's eight-channel DDR4 bandwidth, benefiting memory-bound workloads.

The overall benchmark percentile places the EPYC at 96 versus 95 for the Ryzen AI, and the average benchmark scores are 85,072 versus 80,762, a 5.3% gap. This slight edge for the EPYC reflects its broader multi-threaded dominance, but the Ryzen AI's wins in single-thread and math tests make it competitive in a different class. The EPYC's nearest rivals are Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus (1.3% ahead) and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (1.5% ahead), while the Ryzen AI's nearest rival is Intel Xeon 638 (0% difference), showing both processors sit at the top of their respective performance tiers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 wins 9 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins 6. The EPYC's wins are concentrated in multi-threaded and cache-heavy workloads, while the Ryzen AI wins in single-thread and math tests.

Q: How does single-thread performance compare between the two?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the Ryzen AI scores 4,078 versus 2,384 for the EPYC, a 41.5% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,328 versus 2,012.5, a 214.4% advantage, showing benchmark-specific results.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC's 50% more cores contribute to its multi-threaded wins.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 256.0 GB/s bandwidth from its quad-channel LPDDR5X memory, while the EPYC 7F72 has 204.8 GB/s from its eight-channel DDR4 memory. Despite fewer channels, the Ryzen AI's newer memory technology provides 25% more bandwidth.

Q: Does the Ryzen AI have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 includes Radeon 8060S integrated graphics. The EPYC 7F72 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the TDP differences and how do they affect use cases?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has a 240 W TDP, suited for server platforms with robust cooling. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a 55 W TDP, enabling mobile and compact designs. This 185 W difference is critical for system power budgets and thermal management.