AMD EPYC 8024P vs AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 Comparison

The Verdict

The database comparison between the AMD EPYC 8024P and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 presents two very different processors with opposing design goals. The EPYC 8024P wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 takes 6. The EPYC's advantages are concentrated in sustained multi-threaded workloads, physics simulation, and data encryption, where its server-oriented configuration delivers decisive margins. The Ryzen AI 5 340 counters with a massive single-thread lead, superior floating-point throughput, and better extended instruction performance.

The EPYC 8024P is the choice for server and workstation deployments where multi-core throughput, memory bandwidth, and platform features like ECC memory and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity matter more than raw single-core speed. Its 39.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 74% advantage in PassMark physics make it the clear pick for rendering, scientific computing, and virtualization. The Ryzen AI 5 340, on the other hand, is a mobile part with a 28 W TDP, integrated Radeon 840M graphics, and a 35.6% single-thread advantage in PassMark. It suits thin-and-light laptops where responsiveness, battery life, and everyday application performance take priority over all-core workloads.

Both processors sit at the 78th percentile among all CPUs in the database, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 26,555 for the EPYC and 25,981 for the Ryzen. The EPYC's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-11900K, just 0.3% ahead, while the Ryzen AI 5 340's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5655GE, 0.4% behind. The data shows two chips that land in the same overall performance tier but achieve it through completely different architectural strategies. Buyers should choose based on workload profile and platform requirements, not raw average scores, since the two parts rarely trade blows evenly on the same type of task.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 8024P belongs to the EPYC 8004 series, codenamed Siena, and uses the Zen 4c architecture. It is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with 8,875 million transistors on a 73 mm² die. The Ryzen AI 5 340 is part of the Ryzen AI 300 series, codenamed Krackan Point, and uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process with a much larger 195 mm² die. The EPYC packs 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 2.40 GHz with a 3.00 GHz boost, whereas the Ryzen starts at 2.00 GHz and boosts to 4.80 GHz, a far more aggressive single-thread ceiling.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC 8024P provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen AI 5 340 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and just 8 MB of L3. That 4x difference in L3 capacity favors the EPYC in workloads with large working sets. Memory support also diverges: the EPYC runs DDR5 in a six-channel configuration with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support, while the Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a dual-channel setup with 89.6 GB/s and no ECC. The EPYC offers PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes, compared to Gen 4 with 16 lanes on the Ryzen. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 840M graphics; the EPYC has none. The EPYC uses Socket SP6, the Ryzen uses Socket FP8. The EPYC launched on 2023-09-17 with a launch MSRP of $409, while the Ryzen appears in the database with no launch MSRP and a release date of 2025-01-05.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI 5 340 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How do their single-threaded performances compare?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 340 leads decisively in PassMark single-thread with a score of 3,683 versus 2,371 for the EPYC, a 35.6% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC wins with 2,466 against 1,915.5, a 28.7% lead. The PassMark test reflects the Ryzen's higher 4.80 GHz boost clock, while the Cinebench result may favor the EPYC's cache configuration.

Q: Which processor is better for multi-threaded rendering?

A: The EPYC 8024P wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with 17,472 points versus 12,532 for the Ryzen AI 5 340, a 39.4% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, however, the Ryzen wins 1,915 to 1,761, an 8% edge, showing that the EPYC's advantage grows with longer, more demanding workloads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 8024P supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 8024P has a six-channel memory bus delivering 230.4 GB/s, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 has a dual-channel bus at 89.6 GB/s. The EPYC provides roughly 2.6 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 340 includes Radeon 840M integrated graphics. The EPYC 8024P has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The EPYC 8024P has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the EPYC and 2.00 GHz for the Ryzen, but boost clocks reverse the order: 3.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP ratings are far apart, with the EPYC at 90 W and the Ryzen at 28 W. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8. Architecture differs as well: Zen 4c for the EPYC, Zen 5 for the Ryzen. Process nodes differ by one generation: 5 nm for the EPYC, 4 nm for the Ryzen, both from TSMC. Transistor counts are listed only for the EPYC at 8,875 million, while die sizes are 73 mm² for the EPYC and 195 mm² for the Ryzen. L1 cache per core is 64 KB on the EPYC and 80 KB on the Ryzen; L2 is identical at 1 MB per core; L3 is 32 MB shared on the EPYC versus 8 MB on the Ryzen. Memory support includes DDR5 for the EPYC and DDR5 plus LPDDR5X for the Ryzen. Memory buses are six-channel for the EPYC and dual-channel for the Ryzen, with bandwidths of 230.4 GB/s and 89.6 GB/s respectively. ECC is supported only on the EPYC. PCIe generations differ: Gen 5 with 96 lanes on the EPYC versus Gen 4 with 16 lanes on the Ryzen. Integrated graphics exist only on the Ryzen (Radeon 840M). Market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Mobile for the Ryzen. Release dates are 2023-09-17 for the EPYC and 2025-01-05 for the Ryzen. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $409; the Ryzen has none listed. Both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 8024P dominates the multi-threaded and server-oriented tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 17,472 against 12,532 for the Ryzen AI 5 340, a 39.4% victory. The gap widens in PassMark physics, where the EPYC posts 1,905 versus 1,095, a 74% lead. Data encryption shows a 37.8% advantage for the EPYC (15,809 versus 11,470), and random string sorting goes to the EPYC by 38.6% (34,613 versus 24,970). Find prime numbers favors the EPYC by 51.4% (109 versus 72). PassMark multithread goes to the EPYC with 20,556 versus 19,506, a 5.4% margin. Data compression is nearly tied, with the EPYC at 232,242 versus 229,796, a 1.1% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core also goes to the EPYC at 2,466 versus 1,915.5, a 28.7% margin, and Cinebench R15 single-core is close, with the EPYC at 248 versus 242.6, a 2.2% win.

The Ryzen AI 5 340 takes its wins where single-thread speed and floating-point throughput matter. PassMark single-thread goes to the Ryzen by 35.6%, with 3,683 versus 2,371. Floating-point math favors the Ryzen at 39,967 versus 34,757, a 13% edge. Extended instructions go to the Ryzen by 13.3% (16,440 versus 14,251). Integer math is nearly even, with the Ryzen at 63,078 versus 62,128, a 1.5% margin. Cinebench R15 multi-core goes to the Ryzen at 1,915 versus 1,761, an 8% win, though this is the oldest Cinebench version in the test set and may not reflect sustained all-core performance.

The benchmark pattern is clear. The EPYC's wins are larger in magnitude, often exceeding 30%, while the Ryzen's single-thread victory is its only blowout and its other wins are modest. The two chips land within 0.3% and 0.7% of their nearest rivals respectively, but their head-to-head results show a processor designed for throughput against one designed for efficiency and responsiveness. The EPYC 8024P is the stronger all-around compute part in the database's measurements, while the Ryzen AI 5 340 excels at tasks that leverage its high boost clock and modern Zen 5 architecture.