AMD EPYC 8124P vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 and AMD EPYC 8124P are fundamentally different processors aimed at different workloads, despite both sitting at the 91st percentile in the benchmark database. The P164 is a mobile-class, 28-watt part with a 5.00 GHz boost clock and a Radeon 880M iGPU, while the EPYC 8124P is a server chip with 16 cores, 125 watts, and a 3.00 GHz boost clock. The data shows a clear split: the EPYC wins 9 of 11 head-to-head benchmarks, including massive leads in multi-threaded and compute-heavy tasks, while the P164 wins single-thread performance by a dominant 77.4%. The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 8124P is for server workloads that demand parallel throughput and memory bandwidth, while the P164 is for embedded or mobile systems where single-core speed and power efficiency are critical.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 8124P is the obvious choice for any workload that scales across cores. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver a 28.1% higher PassMark multithread score (36014 vs 25889) and a 63.9% higher physics score (3356 vs 1210) compared to the P164. The EPYC also dominates in data compression (468411 vs 327891, a 30% lead), data encryption (30743 vs 16055, a 47.8% lead), and integer math (123513 vs 87940, a 28.8% lead). If you are running virtualization, database workloads, or any parallel compute, the EPYC 8124P is the only rational pick from this data.

The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins only in single-threaded performance, where its 4029 score crushes the EPYC's 2271 (a 77.4% advantage). This makes it the better choice for latency-sensitive, lightly-threaded applications, especially in embedded systems where the 28W TDP and integrated Radeon 880M graphics are valuable. The P164 also has a higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 3.00 GHz), which directly contributes to its single-thread edge. However, with only 8 cores and 16 threads, it cannot compete in any multi-threaded scenario.

The percentile data reinforces this: both chips score at the 91st percentile, but their nearest rivals tell different stories. The P164 trades blows with desktop parts like the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (deltaPct -0.7%) and Intel Xeon 634 (deltaPct -0.1%), while the EPYC 8124P sits alongside the Intel Core Ultra 5 235HX (deltaPct 0.1%) and AMD Ryzen 9 5950X (deltaPct 0.3%). This means neither chip is a slouch overall, but the EPYC's average benchmark score of 52121 is only slightly lower than the P164's 52901, despite the EPYC's much higher core count. The P164's single-thread advantage is so large that it nearly compensates for the EPYC's multi-thread dominance in the average score.

Architecture Differences

The process nodes differ: the P164 is built on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the EPYC 8124P uses TSMC's 5 nm process. This partially explains the P164's higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) and lower TDP (28W vs 125W). The P164 uses a hybrid Zen 5 / Zen 5c architecture (codename Gorgon Point), while the EPYC 8124P uses Zen 4c (codename Siena). The EPYC's cache layout is drastically different: it has 64 MB of shared L3 cache versus the P164's 8 MB, and its L1 cache is 64 KB per core versus the P164's 80 KB per core. Both have 1 MB L2 per core.

The EPYC 8124P has double the cores (16 vs 8) and double the threads (32 vs 16), which is the primary driver of its multi-threaded wins. The EPYC also has a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, versus the P164's dual-channel 89.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the P164 also supports LPDDR5X. The P164 has a Radeon 880M integrated GPU, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics. PCIe capabilities differ significantly: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only), while the P164 offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

The die size is another major difference: the P164 has a single 233 mm² die, while the EPYC uses two separate 73 mm² dies (totaling 146 mm²). The EPYC has a listed transistor count of 17,750 million, while the P164's transistor count is not specified. The EPYC also has a part number (100-000001135) and a launch MSRP of $639, while the P164 has no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8124P wins every multi-threaded and compute-intensive benchmark. Its largest margins are in find prime numbers (222 vs 71, a 68% lead), physics (3356 vs 1210, a 63.9% lead), and data encryption (30743 vs 16055, a 47.8% lead). It also wins in random string sorting (64067 vs 34801, a 45.7% lead), data compression (468411 vs 327891, a 30% lead), integer math (123513 vs 87940, a 28.8% lead), multithread (36014 vs 25889, a 28.1% lead), floating point math (72395 vs 55799, a 22.9% lead), and extended instructions (29666 vs 24193, a 18.4% lead). The EPYC's 64 MB L3 cache and six-channel memory bandwidth clearly power these wins.

The P164 wins only in single-threaded benchmarks, with a score of 4029 versus the EPYC's 2271 (a 77.4% lead). This is consistent with its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. The P164's wins are narrow in scope but decisive in magnitude. For any workload that is not heavily threaded, such as legacy application compatibility, real-time control loops, or certain embedded tasks, the P164's single-thread speed is the deciding factor.

Use-case split: the EPYC 8124P is for server racks, virtualization hosts, and data processing pipelines. Its 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and 230.4 GB/s memory bandwidth make it ideal for storage controllers and network appliances. The P164 is for mobile workstations, embedded systems, and edge devices where the 28W TDP and integrated Radeon 880M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. The P164's socket (AMD Socket FP8) is mobile-oriented, while the EPYC uses Socket SP6 for server motherboards.

FAQ

Q: Why does the EPYC 8124P win so many benchmarks despite having a lower boost clock?

A: The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads versus the P164's 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has 64 MB of L3 cache versus 8 MB, and a six-channel memory bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel 89.6 GB/s. These factors drive its wins in multithread (36014 vs 25889), physics (3356 vs 1210), and data compression (468411 vs 327891).

Q: Is the P164's single-thread performance really that much better?

A: Yes. The P164 scores 4029 in PassMark single-thread, which is 77.4% higher than the EPYC's 2271. This is directly tied to its 5.00 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, and it makes the P164 the clear winner for lightly-threaded tasks.

Q: Which chip has better memory support for server workloads?

A: The EPYC 8124P is superior for memory-intensive workloads. It supports DDR5 with a six-channel bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The P164 also supports DDR5 but is dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s, though it adds LPDDR5X support.

Q: Can the P164 replace the EPYC in a server?

A: No. The EPYC has 16 cores, 32 threads, and 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the P164 has 8 cores, 16 threads, and 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC's physics score (3356) is 63.9% higher than the P164's (1210), showing a massive gap in parallel compute.

Q: Do both chips support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the P164 and the EPYC 8124P list ECC memory support. The EPYC supports DDR5 only, while the P164 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The P164 has a 28W TDP versus the EPYC's 125W TDP. The P164 achieves a higher single-thread score (4029 vs 2271) at a fraction of the power, making it more efficient for single-threaded tasks. The EPYC uses more power but delivers far higher multi-threaded throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 8124P's largest victory is in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 222 versus the P164's 71, a 68% delta. This is a pure multi-thread test, and the EPYC's 16 cores tear through it. The physics benchmark shows a similar story: 3356 versus 1210, a 63.9% lead. These two tests alone confirm the EPYC's dominance in parallel integer and simulation workloads.

Data encryption is another strong EPYC win: 30743 versus 16055, a 47.8% delta. This suggests the EPYC's Zen 4c cores handle cryptographic instructions more effectively, likely aided by its larger L3 cache. Random string sorting follows with 64067 versus 34801, a 45.7% lead, indicating better memory subsystem performance. Data compression shows a 30% lead (468411 vs 327891), and integer math a 28.8% lead (123513 vs 87940). The multithread test itself is 28.1% in the EPYC's favor (36014 vs 25889).

The EPYC also wins floating point math (72395 vs 55799, a 22.9% lead) and extended instructions (29666 vs 24193, a 18.4% lead). These wins are consistent across the board, with the EPYC taking 9 of 11 benchmarks. The only losses are the two single-thread tests, where the P164 scores 4029 and the EPYC scores 2271, a 77.4% delta in the P164's favor.

The P164's single-thread win is the most dramatic delta in the entire comparison. It shows that the EPYC's lower clock speed (3.00 GHz) is a severe handicap for single-threaded code, while the P164's 5.00 GHz boost clock gives it a massive edge. However, the EPYC's multithread score (36014) is still 39% higher than the P164's single-thread score (25889), meaning the EPYC is faster overall in any parallel workload.

Specification Differences

The core count is the most obvious difference: 8 cores / 16 threads for the P164 versus 16 cores / 32 threads for the EPYC 8124P. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the P164 and 2.45 GHz for the EPYC, but boost clocks reverse the order: 5.00 GHz for the P164 versus 3.00 GHz for the EPYC. TDP is 28W versus 125W. The P164 uses AMD Socket FP8, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6.

Process node: 4 nm for the P164, 5 nm for the EPYC. The EPYC lists 17,750 million transistors and a die size of 2x 73 mm², while the P164 has a single 233 mm² die with no transistor count listed. Cache differs: L1 is 80 KB per core for the P164 versus 64 KB per core for the EPYC; L2 is 1 MB per core for both; L3 is 8 MB for the P164 versus 64 MB shared for the EPYC.

Memory support: the P164 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X on a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth; the EPYC supports DDR5 on a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC. PCIe: the P164 has Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC has Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The P164 includes a Radeon 880M integrated GPU; the EPYC has none. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $639, while the P164 has no MSRP listed. Release dates differ: the P164 is dated 2026-03-08, while the EPYC is dated 2023-09-17. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.