AMD EPYC 8224P vs AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8224P and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 occupy opposite ends of the server/workstation spectrum, yet both land in the 95th percentile of all CPUs. The data reveals a clear split: the 24-core EPYC dominates almost every multi-threaded workload, while the 8-core Ryzen delivers a decisive single-thread victory. This is not a close contest overall, but a stark illustration of how core count and clock speed serve different purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 8224P wins 9 of the 11 shared benchmarks, and several of those victories are by overwhelming margins. The largest gap appears in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 46,742 against the Ryzen’s 22,848 — a 104.6% advantage. That is more than double the throughput, a figure that speaks directly to server-side security workloads. Random string sorting shows a 65.9% lead (81,674 vs 49,219), and physics simulation comes in at 59.7% ahead (3,236 vs 2,026). These are not small deltas; they represent fundamental differences in parallel execution capability.

In integer math, the EPYC posts 185,556 versus 124,167, a 49.4% lead that mirrors the single-thread deficit almost exactly. Data compression follows at 53.6% (702,065 vs 457,211), and floating-point math shows a 27% edge (104,698 vs 82,461). Even in extended instructions, where the Ryzen’s newer Zen 5 cores might be expected to shine, the EPYC wins by 18.5% (43,614 vs 36,800). The find-prime-numbers test is the closest multi-threaded result, with the EPYC ahead only 9.6% (206 vs 188), suggesting that this particular workload does not scale perfectly with the extra cores.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 9745’s only wins come in the two single-thread tests, and they are emphatic. It scores 4,624 in both passmark_single_thread and passmark_singlethread, against the EPYC’s 2,339 — a 49.4% advantage. That is the exact inverse of the integer math delta, which makes sense: single-thread performance is dominated by clock speed and IPC, and the Ryzen’s 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz boost clock is the obvious driver. The overall average benchmark scores reflect the balance: the EPYC sits at 75,582, while the Ryzen trails slightly at 74,761, a difference of about 1.1%.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8224P is the clear choice for heavily threaded, parallel workloads. Its wins in data compression, encryption, physics, and integer math point toward database operations, scientific computing, and any server task that can utilize 48 threads. The 104.6% encryption advantage is particularly notable for virtualized environments or any workload involving secure data transfer. The 65.9% lead in random string sorting suggests strong performance in sorting algorithms, which are common in data processing pipelines.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 wins exclusively on single-thread performance. The 49.4% lead in single-thread tests makes it the better option for lightly threaded applications, legacy software that does not scale, or tasks where a single core’s speed is the bottleneck. This includes many database queries that are inherently serial, as well as general workstation responsiveness. The Ryzen also has an integrated GPU (Radeon Graphics), while the EPYC has none, which could matter for systems that need basic display output without a discrete card.

The data also shows the Ryzen’s efficiency advantage. Its 65W TDP versus the EPYC’s 160W TDP means it delivers its single-thread performance at a fraction of the power draw. The EPYC’s six-channel memory bus provides 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the Ryzen’s dual-channel 89.6 GB/s — a 157% difference that favors the server chip in memory-intensive parallel workloads, even though it does not appear directly in the head-to-head scores.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different AMD generations and process nodes. The EPYC 8224P is built on Zen 4c architecture (codename Siena) using a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 uses Zen 5 (codename Granite Ridge) on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The EPYC packs 17,750 million transistors across two 73 mm² dies, whereas the Ryzen has 8,315 million transistors on a single 70.6 mm² die. The density difference is stark: the EPYC crams far more transistors into a similar total area, reflecting the Zen 4c design philosophy that prioritizes core count over clock speed.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The EPYC allocates 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen has 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but only 32 MB of shared L3. The EPYC’s double L3 capacity is a direct advantage for multi-threaded workloads that share data. The per-core L1 difference (64 KB vs 80 KB) slightly favors the Ryzen for single-threaded data reuse.

Memory support is another major split. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the EPYC uses a six-channel bus with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel with 89.6 GB/s. PCIe lanes follow the same pattern: the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus the Ryzen’s 24 Gen 5 lanes. Socket and platform differ as well — the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Ryzen uses AM5. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $855; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP. The EPYC was released on 2023-09-17, while the Ryzen came later on 2025-09-15.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: pick the AMD EPYC 8224P if your workloads are parallel and can use 24 cores and 48 threads. It wins every multi-threaded test, with leads ranging from 9.6% to 104.6%. The encryption and compression advantages alone justify its use in server environments. Its higher TDP (160W) and larger cache (64 MB L3) are the price of that throughput, but the six-channel memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s) ensures the cores stay fed.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 if single-thread performance is the priority. Its 49.4% lead in single-thread tests is decisive, and its 5.40 GHz boost clock versus 3.00 GHz is the clear cause. The 65W TDP makes it far more efficient for desktop or light workstation use, and the integrated Radeon Graphics removes the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. However, its 8 cores and 16 threads will struggle in any heavily parallel workload, and the dual-channel memory bus (89.6 GB/s) is a bottleneck for memory-intensive tasks.

The overall average scores are close (75,582 vs 74,761), which could mislead. The EPYC’s lead is built on its multi-threaded dominance, while the Ryzen’s single-thread excellence keeps it competitive in the aggregate. For a server rack, the EPYC is the obvious choice. For a developer’s workstation running serial compilers or single-threaded scripts, the Ryzen will feel faster. The data does not support a single "best" — it supports two distinct use cases.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 scores 4,624 in the passmark single-thread test, while the AMD EPYC 8224P scores 2,339. The Ryzen leads by 49.4%.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC in data encryption?

A: The EPYC 8224P scores 46,742 versus the Ryzen’s 22,848, a 104.6% advantage — more than double the throughput.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Ryzen has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 8224P and the Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 8224P boosts to 3.00 GHz.

Q: How do their overall average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 8224P has an average benchmark score of 75,582, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 scores 74,761. The EPYC is ahead by about 1.1%.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 8224P | AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9745 |

|-------|----------------|----------------------|

| Series | EPYC 8004 series | 9000 series |

| Cores | 24 | 8 |

| Threads | 48 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 160 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4c | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Siena | Granite Ridge |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 17,750 million | 8,315 million |

| Die Size | 2x 73 mm² | 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 96 (CPU only) | Gen 5, 24 (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Graphics |

| Release Date | 2023-09-17 | 2025-09-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $855 | None |