AMD EPYC 8024P vs AMD Ryzen 5 8640U Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8024P and AMD Ryzen 5 8640U represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, targeting opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The EPYC 8024P is a server-focused processor built for sustained throughput in dense workloads, while the Ryzen 5 8640U is a mobile chip optimized for responsiveness and efficiency in portable devices. Benchmark data shows the EPYC wins 9 of 15 head-to-head tests, but the Ryzen 5 takes the most decisive single-thread victory, making the choice heavily dependent on workload type.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8024P dominates in multi-threaded and server-oriented tasks. Its most dramatic win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 17472 against the Ryzen 5’s 10433, a 67.5% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1761 vs 1663, a 5.9% lead) and in PassMark’s physics test, where the EPYC scores 1905 versus 1033, an 84.4% margin. The EPYC also leads in data encryption (15809 vs 14013, 12.8% ahead), random string sorting (34613 vs 28066, 23.3% ahead), and find prime numbers (109 vs 69, 58% ahead). These results point to a processor that excels when all cores are engaged and the workload involves heavy computational lifting or memory-intensive operations.

The Ryzen 5 8640U wins in single-threaded and mixed-precision scenarios. Its most striking result is PassMark single-thread, scoring 3534 versus 2371 for the EPYC, a 32.9% advantage. It also wins in Cinebench R15 single-core (256 vs 248, 3.1% ahead), floating-point math (40330 vs 34757, 13.8% ahead), integer math (68051 vs 62128, 8.7% ahead), and extended instructions (16500 vs 14251, 13.6% ahead). These wins suggest the Ryzen 5 is better suited for interactive applications, scientific calculations with high per-core requirements, and workloads that benefit from modern instruction set extensions.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split lies in the core design. The EPYC 8024P uses Zen 4c architecture on the Siena codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 73 mm² and 8,875 million transistors. The Ryzen 5 8640U uses full Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on a more advanced 4 nm process, with a significantly larger die at 178 mm² and 25,000 million transistors. Despite the smaller die, the EPYC packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen 5 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC’s Zen 4c design prioritizes density and power efficiency per core, which explains its lower clock speeds: 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost versus the Ryzen 5’s 3.50 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost.

Cache configurations differ sharply. Both share 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, but the EPYC has 32 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Ryzen 5’s 16 MB. Memory support also diverges: the EPYC uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while the Ryzen 5 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe capabilities favor the server chip: Gen 5 with 96 lanes versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The Ryzen 5 includes integrated Radeon 760M graphics, while the EPYC has none. TDP ratings reflect the intended environments: 90 W for the EPYC on AMD Socket SP6, versus 28 W for the Ryzen 5 on AMD Socket FP8.

The Verdict

For server racks and workstation deployments where multi-threaded throughput is king, the EPYC 8024P is the clear choice. The data shows it leads by 67.5% in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 84.4% in PassMark physics, with a 1.2% edge in PassMark multi-thread overall. Its six-channel memory and ECC support make it suitable for data integrity-critical environments. The Ryzen 5 8640U is for mobile users who need fast single-thread responsiveness: it leads by 32.9% in PassMark single-thread and 13.8% in floating-point math, while consuming far less power (28 W TDP). Neither chip is unlocked for overclocking.

The EPYC’s 78th percentile versus all CPUs matches the Ryzen 5’s 78th percentile, indicating similar overall standing, but the distribution of scores is entirely different. In head-to-head terms, the EPYC wins 9 tests and the Ryzen 5 wins 6, yet the Ryzen 5’s wins are often by larger margins in single-thread tests. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 26555, slightly above the Ryzen 5’s 26462, a 0.4% difference. For a server buyer, the EPYC’s launch MSRP is $409. The Ryzen 5 has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

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

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P wins decisively with a score of 17472 versus 10433 for the Ryzen 5 8640U, a 67.5% lead.

Q: What is the biggest single-thread performance gap?

A: The Ryzen 5 8640U leads by 32.9% in PassMark single-thread, scoring 3534 against the EPYC’s 2371.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 8640U includes Radeon 760M integrated graphics; the EPYC 8024P has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 8024P supports ECC memory with six-channel DDR5, while the Ryzen 5 8640U does not support ECC and uses dual-channel DDR5.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 8024P has an average benchmark score of 26555, which is 0.4% higher than the Ryzen 5’s 26462; the nearest rival for both is the Intel Core i9-12900HK with a score of 26469.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the EPYC 8024P is in PassMark physics, where it scores 1905 against 1033 for the Ryzen 5, an 84.4% margin. This is followed by Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the EPYC’s 17472 dwarfs the Ryzen 5’s 10433 by 67.5%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC also wins, scoring 2466 versus 1651, a 49.4% advantage. Find prime numbers shows a 58% EPYC lead (109 vs 69), and random string sorting is 23.3% in favor of the EPYC (34613 vs 28066). Data encryption goes to the EPYC by 12.8% (15809 vs 14013). Smaller EPYC wins include Cinebench R15 multi-core (5.9% lead), PassMark multi-thread (1.2% lead), and data compression (0.9% lead).

The Ryzen 5 8640U’s biggest win is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 3534 versus 2371, a 32.9% margin. It also wins in floating-point math by 13.8% (40330 vs 34757), extended instructions by 13.6% (16500 vs 14251), and integer math by 8.7% (68051 vs 62128). The smallest Ryzen 5 win is Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 256 versus 248, a 3.1% edge. Notably, the Ryzen 5’s PassMark multi-thread score of 20322 is only 1.2% behind the EPYC’s 20556, showing that despite fewer cores, the mobile chip keeps pace in mixed workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads; the Ryzen 5 8640U has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the EPYC and 3.50 GHz for the Ryzen 5; boost clocks are 3.00 GHz and 4.90 GHz respectively. TDP ratings are 90 W for the EPYC and 28 W for the Ryzen 5. Sockets are AMD Socket SP6 for the EPYC and AMD Socket FP8 for the Ryzen 5. Architecture differs: Zen 4c for the EPYC versus Zen 4 for the Ryzen 5, with codenames Siena and Hawk Point respectively. Process nodes are 5 nm for the EPYC and 4 nm for the Ryzen 5, both from TSMC.

Transistor counts and die sizes are vastly different: the EPYC has 8,875 million transistors on a 73 mm² die, while the Ryzen 5 has 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. L3 cache is 32 MB shared for the EPYC and 16 MB shared for the Ryzen 5; L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 1 MB per core. Memory bus width favors the EPYC with six-channel DDR5, while the Ryzen 5 uses dual-channel DDR5; memory bandwidth is 230.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. ECC support is present only on the EPYC. PCIe lanes are Gen 5 with 96 lanes for the EPYC, versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes for the Ryzen 5. Integrated graphics exist only on the Ryzen 5 (Radeon 760M). Market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Mobile for the Ryzen 5. Release dates are September 2023 for the EPYC and December 2023 for the Ryzen 5.