AMD EPYC 8124P vs AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8124P and AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 occupy different corners of the AMD lineup, but the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly competitive matchup. The EPYC 8124P, a 16-core server processor from the EPYC 8004 series, faces off against the 12-core mobile Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 from the Ryzen AI PRO 300 series. Their average benchmark scores sit close, with the EPYC at 52121 and the Ryzen at 50448, a gap of roughly 3%. Yet the distribution of wins tells a more complex story, with the EPYC taking 11 of the 15 recorded head-to-head tests while the Ryzen claims only 4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in single-core performance, where the two processors trade blows in opposite directions depending on the test generation. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 8124P scores 435 against the Ryzen’s 309, a 40.8% advantage. That gap widens considerably in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the EPYC posts 4321 versus the Ryzen’s 1992, a staggering 116.9% lead. These results seem counterintuitive given the Ryzen’s higher boost clock, but the data is unambiguous. The EPYC’s Zen 4c architecture, despite its lower clock ceiling, delivers far stronger single-threaded Cinebench numbers in this comparison.

However, the PassMark single-thread test flips the script entirely. Here the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 scores 4003, while the EPYC manages only 2271, giving the mobile chip a 43.3% edge. The same result appears for the duplicate PassMark singlethread entry. This inconsistency between Cinebench and PassMark single-core tests suggests the two processors excel in different types of single-threaded workloads, with the EPYC favoring rendering-style tasks and the Ryzen favoring more general integer and floating-point operations.

Multi-core results show a clearer pattern. The EPYC dominates Cinebench R23 multi-core with 30611 points versus the Ryzen’s 18520, a 65.3% difference. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen actually wins narrowly, scoring 3178 against the EPYC’s 3085, a 2.9% margin. This is the only multi-core test the Ryzen wins, and it is worth remembering the older R15 test may not scale as well with the EPYC’s thread count. The PassMark multi-thread test gives the EPYC a 36014 to 33349 win, an 8% advantage.

The EPYC’s largest wins come in specialized workloads. PassMark physics shows a 77.4% lead, with scores of 3356 versus 1892. Prime number finding gives the EPYC a 69.5% edge, 222 to 131. Data encryption favors the EPYC by 47.9%, at 30743 versus 20788. Random string sorting sees a 46.4% EPYC advantage, 64067 to 43767. Data compression is closer but still EPYC-favored, 468411 to 403113, a 16.2% gap.

The Ryzen’s other wins are narrow. Floating-point math gives the Ryzen a 73493 to 72395 result, a 1.5% margin. Integer math goes to the EPYC by only 2.9%, 123513 to 120016. Extended instructions favor the EPYC at 29666 versus 28165, a 5.3% difference. The Ryzen’s wins are concentrated in single-thread PassMark tests and one Cinebench R15 multi-core result, while the EPYC claims everything else.

Architecture Differences

The two chips are built on fundamentally different architectures. The EPYC 8124P uses Zen 4c, codenamed Siena, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 uses Zen 5, codenamed Strix Point. The EPYC is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, whereas the Ryzen uses a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The EPYC’s die is composed of two 73 mm² chiplets, totaling 146 mm², while the Ryzen uses a single 233 mm² monolithic die. The EPYC packs 17,750 million transistors across its two chiplets; the Ryzen’s transistor count is not recorded.

Core counts differ substantially. The EPYC offers 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen provides 12 cores and 24 threads. This gives the EPYC a 33% core advantage and a matching thread advantage. Cache layouts also diverge. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 16 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s L3 cache is four times larger, which likely contributes to its performance in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

Memory subsystems are radically different. The EPYC supports DDR5 across a six-channel memory bus, delivering 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X, but only on a dual-channel bus, yielding 89.6 GB/s. That is a 2.57x bandwidth advantage for the EPYC. Both processors support ECC memory, which is unusual for a mobile part but confirmed for the Ryzen.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes. This makes the EPYC far more suited to expansion-heavy server workloads, while the Ryzen’s lane count is typical for a mobile processor. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 890M graphics, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics at all.

Clock speeds present an interesting contrast. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.45 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Ryzen has a lower base clock of 2.00 GHz but a much higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The Ryzen’s boost clock is 70% higher, which explains its PassMark single-thread advantage, but the EPYC’s sustained multi-core performance in Cinebench suggests its lower clocks are offset by other factors.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8124P wins decisively in server and workstation-oriented workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 30611 is 65.3% higher than the Ryzen’s, indicating strong rendering and CPU-bound compute performance. The physics test, which often correlates with simulation and scientific computing, shows a 77.4% EPYC advantage. Data encryption, a common server task, favors the EPYC by 47.9%. Prime number finding, relevant to cryptography and number theory, gives the EPYC a 69.5% lead. Random string sorting, useful in database and sorting applications, shows a 46.4% EPYC edge.

The EPYC also wins in data compression by 16.2%, a workload tied to storage and network throughput. Its 64 MB L3 cache and six-channel memory bandwidth likely drive these results. The EPYC’s 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and server socket further cement its role in multi-GPU, NVMe, and networking environments, though benchmark data cannot directly measure those capabilities.

The Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 wins in single-threaded PassMark tests, where its 5.10 GHz boost clock shines. The 4003 single-thread score is 43.3% ahead of the EPYC. Floating-point math also favors the Ryzen by a slim 1.5% margin, indicating competitive math throughput despite fewer cores. The Ryzen’s Cinebench R15 multi-core win, while narrow, shows that in some legacy multi-threaded tests it can hold its own.

For mobile users, the Ryzen’s integrated Radeon 890M graphics and support for LPDDR5X memory make it a complete package for a laptop. Its 28 W TDP is dramatically lower than the EPYC’s 125 W, making it suitable for thin-and-light systems. The EPYC, by contrast, requires a server platform with a dedicated cooling solution.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several fields where the two processors differ. The EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are 2.45 GHz for the EPYC and 2.00 GHz for the Ryzen; boost clocks are 3.00 GHz and 5.10 GHz respectively. TDP is 125 W for the EPYC and 28 W for the Ryzen.

Sockets differ: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP8. Architecture is Zen 4c for the EPYC and Zen 5 for the Ryzen. Process nodes are 5 nm and 4 nm, both from TSMC. The EPYC’s die is 2x 73 mm², while the Ryzen’s is 233 mm². The EPYC has 17,750 million transistors; the Ryzen’s count is not recorded.

L1 cache is 64 KB per core for the EPYC and 80 KB per core for the Ryzen. L2 cache is 1 MB per core for both. L3 cache is 64 MB shared for the EPYC and 16 MB for the Ryzen. Memory support differs: the EPYC uses DDR5 only, while the Ryzen supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X. 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. PCIe is Gen 5 with 96 lanes for the EPYC and Gen 4 with 16 lanes for the Ryzen.

The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen includes Radeon 890M. Market segments are Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Mobile for the Ryzen. Release dates are September 17, 2023 for the EPYC and January 5, 2025 for the Ryzen. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $639, while the Ryzen has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8124P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do their single-core Cinebench scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 435 versus the Ryzen’s 309, a 40.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 4321 versus 1992, a 116.9% lead.

Q: Why does the Ryzen win the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The Ryzen scores 4003 in PassMark single-thread, while the EPYC scores 2271, giving the Ryzen a 43.3% advantage. This likely relates to the Ryzen’s 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC provides 230.4 GB/s over a six-channel DDR5 bus, while the Ryzen provides 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel bus supporting DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both the EPYC 8124P and the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP values?

A: The EPYC has a TDP of 125 W, while the Ryzen has a TDP of 28 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by use case. The AMD EPYC 8124P is the choice for server and workstation deployments where multi-threaded throughput, large cache, and memory bandwidth matter. Its 65.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 77.4% lead in physics, and 47.9% lead in data encryption make it the stronger processor for rendering, scientific simulation, and cryptographic workloads. The 64 MB L3 cache and six-channel memory subsystem provide a substantial advantage in data-heavy tasks, as shown by the 16.2% win in compression and 46.4% win in random string sorting.

The AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 is the better choice for mobile systems where single-thread responsiveness and power efficiency are priorities. Its 43.3% lead in PassMark single-thread and 1.5% win in floating-point math indicate strong general-purpose performance. The 28 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops, and the integrated Radeon 890M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in many scenarios. Its support for LPDDR5X memory adds flexibility for compact designs.

The overall average benchmark scores place the EPYC at 52121 and the Ryzen at 50448, a 3.3% gap in favor of the EPYC. The EPYC sits in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen sits in the 90th. The EPYC’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, while the Ryzen’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-13980HX and AMD Ryzen 9 5900XT. These close averages mask the fact that the EPYC wins 11 of 15 head-to-head tests, but the Ryzen’s wins in single-thread PassMark are substantial.

For a rack-mounted compute node, the EPYC 8124P is the obvious pick. For a high-performance laptop, the Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 370 is the only viable option of the two. The data does not suggest a universal winner, only a context-dependent one.