AMD EPYC 8024P vs AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a split decision, with the AMD EPYC 8024P taking 8 wins and the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS taking 7. The margin of victory tells a clearer story than the raw count. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 8024P posts a score of 17472 against 11486 for the Ryzen 5 8640HS, a 52.1% advantage. This is the largest performance gap in either direction across all tested workloads.

The Ryzen 5 8640HS strikes back in single-threaded PassMark tests. Its score of 3584 is 33.8% higher than the EPYC 8024P's 2371. That is a substantial lead for the mobile chip, and it reflects in the Cinebench R15 single-core result as well, where the Ryzen wins 268 to 248, a 7.5% edge. The EPYC 8024P, however, turns the tables in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 2466 versus 1711, a 44.1% advantage. This inconsistency across different single-thread benchmarks is notable: the Ryzen wins one by 7.5%, the EPYC wins the other by 44.1%.

In multi-threaded workloads beyond Cinebench, the EPYC 8024P shows consistent but narrower leads. PassMark multi-thread scores are 20556 for the EPYC versus 19889 for the Ryzen, a 3.4% difference. The passmark physics test is a standout: the EPYC's 1905 is 96.4% higher than the Ryzen's 970, nearly double. Random string sorting favors the EPYC by 26.7% (34613 vs 27316). Data encryption goes to the EPYC by 16.7% (15809 vs 13551). Data compression is close, with the EPYC ahead by just 2.5% (232242 vs 226544).

The Ryzen 5 8640HS wins several math-oriented PassMark tests. Floating point math goes to the Ryzen by 12.5% (39725 vs 34757). Integer math favors the Ryzen by 8.9% (68173 vs 62128). Extended instructions also go to the Ryzen, with a 10.1% edge (15855 vs 14251). The single-thread results were already noted, but the pattern is clear: the Ryzen excels in workloads that scale with clock speed and per-core efficiency, while the EPYC dominates in multi-threaded and server-style tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD families with distinct design goals. The EPYC 8024P is built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, part of the EPYC 8004 series for server and workstation use. The Ryzen 5 8640HS uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, part of the 8000 series for mobile. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but on different nodes: the EPYC uses a 5 nm process, while the Ryzen uses a 4 nm process.

The core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC's advantage in multi-threaded tests can be partly attributed to this higher core count. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the EPYC has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Ryzen runs at 3.50 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. The Ryzen's higher clocks explain its wins in single-threaded and math-heavy workloads.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the EPYC has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Ryzen's 16 MB. The EPYC's larger L3 likely contributes to its strong showing in data compression and random string sorting. The transistor counts reflect the different die designs: the EPYC has 8,875 million transistors on a 73 mm² die, while the Ryzen has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The Ryzen's larger die includes integrated graphics, a Radeon 760M, which the EPYC lacks.

Memory support is another major divergence. The EPYC 8024P supports DDR5 with a six-channel memory bus and 230.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 8640HS also supports DDR5, but with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes, the Ryzen provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The socket types reflect their intended platforms: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8024P is the clear choice for multi-threaded server workloads. Its 52.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 96.4% lead in PassMark physics indicate strong parallel processing capability. The 16.7% advantage in data encryption and 26.7% in random string sorting further support its suitability for database and server applications. The 55.7% edge in find prime numbers (109 vs 70) points to sustained computational throughput under load. The six-channel memory bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth give it an infrastructure advantage for memory-intensive tasks.

The Ryzen 5 8640HS wins where clock speed and per-core efficiency matter. Its 33.8% lead in PassMark single-thread and 12.5% edge in floating point math make it better suited for responsive, interactive workloads. The 8.9% advantage in integer math and 10.1% in extended instructions show strength in general-purpose computing. The integrated Radeon 760M GPU provides graphics capability that the EPYC cannot offer, making the Ryzen a more complete package for mobile systems. Its 28 W TDP versus the EPYC's 90 W also indicates a much lower power draw, though the database does not record power efficiency metrics beyond these TDP figures.

The data compression test is nearly a tie, with the EPYC ahead by only 2.5%. Neither processor has a decisive edge there. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test also shows a narrow margin, with the Ryzen ahead by 4.6% (1845 vs 1761), which is surprising given the EPYC's larger core count. This suggests that older multi-threaded benchmarks may not fully exploit the EPYC's architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P scores 2466, which is 44.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS's 1711.

Q: How do the two compare in PassMark single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS scores 3584, which is 33.8% higher than the AMD EPYC 8024P's 2371.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P has a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS has a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 8024P supports ECC memory, but the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU. The AMD EPYC 8024P has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical specification. The EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8640HS has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the EPYC and 3.50 GHz for the Ryzen; boost clocks are 3.00 GHz and 4.90 GHz respectively. TDP is 90 W for the EPYC and 28 W for the Ryzen. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8. The EPYC is Zen 4c with codename Siena, the Ryzen is Zen 4 with codename Hawk Point.

The process nodes differ: 5 nm for the EPYC, 4 nm for the Ryzen. Transistor counts are 8,875 million for the EPYC and 25,000 million for the Ryzen. Die sizes are 73 mm² and 178 mm² respectively. L3 cache is 32 MB shared on the EPYC and 16 MB shared on the Ryzen. Memory buses are six-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the Ryzen. Memory bandwidth is 230.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present only on the EPYC. PCIe is Gen 5 with 96 lanes on the EPYC, Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Ryzen. The Ryzen has a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, the EPYC has none.

The market segments differ: the EPYC targets server and workstation, the Ryzen targets mobile. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $409. The Ryzen has no recorded launch MSRP. The EPYC was released on 2023-09-17, while the Ryzen was released on 2023-12-05. Both are currently active in production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear use-case split. Choose the AMD EPYC 8024P for server, workstation, or any workload that demands multi-threaded throughput. Its 52.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 96.4% in PassMark physics, and 55.7% in find prime numbers demonstrate strong parallel performance. The 16.7% edge in data encryption and 26.7% in random string sorting make it well suited for database and data-processing tasks. The six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support further its enterprise credentials.

Choose the AMD Ryzen 5 8640HS for mobile systems where single-thread responsiveness and integrated graphics matter. Its 33.8% lead in PassMark single-thread and 12.5% edge in floating point math show per-core efficiency. The 8.9% advantage in integer math and 10.1% in extended instructions make it competitive for general-purpose computing. The Radeon 760M integrated GPU provides graphics capability the EPYC cannot match. Its 28 W TDP is considerably lower than the EPYC's 90 W, which matters for portable systems.

Both processors sit at the 78th percentile against all CPUs in the database. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 26555, and the Ryzen's is 26106, a gap of roughly 1.7%. Their nearest rivals reflect different ecosystems: the EPYC trades within a few tenths of a percent against the Intel Core i9-11900K and Intel Core i9-12900HK, while the Ryzen sits close to the Intel Core i9-11900KF and AMD Ryzen AI 5 340. The recorded data does not declare an overall winner, because the two processors are built for different environments. The EPYC 8024P is the multi-threaded server part; the Ryzen 5 8640HS is the efficient mobile part. Selection should follow the workload, not a single benchmark score.