AMD EPYC 8224P vs AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and AMD EPYC 8224P represent two fundamentally different design philosophies from the same manufacturer, and the benchmark data reflects this divergence clearly. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395, a mobile-focused Zen 5 part, wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the server-oriented EPYC 8224P, built on Zen 4c, takes 6. However, the magnitude of those wins tells a more nuanced story: the EPYC 8224P’s victories in single-core tests are often overwhelming (up to 62.5% ahead), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395’s advantages in multi-threaded and specialized workloads are more varied, ranging from 7.6% to 77.3%. The choice between these two is not about which is “better” in absolute terms, but which set of trade-offs aligns with the intended workload.

The Verdict

The data positions the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 as the superior choice for latency-sensitive, integer-heavy, and floating-point-intensive tasks that benefit from high per-core throughput and a modern 4 nm process. Its 77.3% lead in PassMark single-thread performance over the EPYC 8224P is the single largest delta in the entire comparison, and it also dominates in extended instructions (29.2% ahead), prime number finding (47.1% ahead), and floating-point math (22.9% ahead). For workloads like real-time physics simulation, scientific computing, or any application where a single thread’s efficiency is paramount, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the clear pick based on the data.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 8224P is the better option for raw multi-core rendering and data compression/encryption pipelines. Its 24 cores and 48 threads give it a structural advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it beats the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 by 8.5%, and in PassMark data compression (1.6% ahead) and encryption (24.1% ahead). The EPYC 8224P also wins decisively in Cinebench R15 single-core (42.4% ahead), which is counterintuitive given its lower base clock, but the benchmark data shows a 549 score versus 316 for the Ryzen part. For server environments where sustained multi-threaded throughput and memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s over six channels) are critical, the EPYC 8224P’s profile is more appropriate.

The verdict is not a blanket recommendation. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is for compute-bound, thread-light workloads that need maximum responsiveness and per-core speed. The EPYC 8224P is for throughput-oriented, heavily parallel tasks where the extra 8 cores and 16 threads matter more than clock speed or architectural efficiency. The data shows no single winner across all categories, and buyers must weigh which benchmark wins align with their actual usage patterns.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 dominates in single-threaded and math-heavy benchmarks. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4147 is 77.3% higher than the EPYC 8224P’s 2339, and it also wins in PassMark integer math (200,665 vs 185,556, an 8.1% margin), floating-point math (128,682 vs 104,698, a 22.9% margin), and extended instructions (56,346 vs 43,614, a 29.2% margin). The find prime numbers test shows a 47.1% advantage (303 vs 206), indicating superior integer arithmetic efficiency. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 also wins in PassMark multi-thread (54,934 vs 45,421, a 20.9% margin) and physics (3,481 vs 3,236, a 7.6% margin), suggesting that even in multi-threaded contexts, its 16 cores with Zen 5 architecture outperform the EPYC’s 24 Zen 4c cores in certain workloads.

The EPYC 8224P’s wins are concentrated in specific areas. It takes Cinebench R23 multi-core (38,607 vs 35,314, an 8.5% margin) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,450 vs 2,044? No, that’s single-core), but the single-core results are particularly striking: Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 42.4% advantage (549 vs 316), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows a 62.5% advantage (5,450 vs 2,044). The EPYC also wins in PassMark data compression (702,065 vs 690,650, a 1.6% margin), data encryption (46,742 vs 35,455, a 24.1% margin), and random string sorting (81,674 vs 76,177, a 6.7% margin). These wins suggest that for data-centric server tasks—encryption, compression, sorting—the EPYC’s higher core count and memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s) provide tangible benefits.

The split is clean: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 excels at computational throughput per core, while the EPYC 8224P excels at memory-bound data manipulation and heavily threaded rendering. There is no overlap in the categories where each wins—the Ryzen part never wins a memory-intensive test, and the EPYC never wins a math or integer benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge at almost every architectural level. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses a 4 nm TSMC process with Zen 5 cores, while the EPYC 8224P uses a 5 nm process with Zen 4c cores. The Ryzen part has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The transistor counts highlight the density difference: the EPYC packs 17,750 million transistors across two 73 mm² dies, while the Ryzen uses two 70.6 mm² dies (transistor count not specified).

Cache hierarchies are similar in total L3 (64 MB shared for both), but the per-core L1 differs: the Ryzen has 80 KB per core, while the EPYC has 64 KB per core. L2 is identical at 1 MB per core. Memory support is a major differentiator: the Ryzen uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses DDR5 with a six-channel bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities are starkly different: the Ryzen offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen integrates a Radeon 8060S GPU, whereas the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

The sockets reflect their market segments: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP11 (mobile), and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6 (server/workstation). The Ryzen’s TDP is 55 W, while the EPYC’s is 160 W. The release dates also differ—the Ryzen launched on 2025-01-05, and the EPYC on 2023-09-17. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $855 (stated once here per guidelines), while the Ryzen’s launch MSRP is not listed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better single-thread performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P wins in Cinebench single-core tests, with a 42.4% advantage in R15 (549 vs 316) and a 62.5% advantage in R23 (5,450 vs 2,044). However, the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins in PassMark single-thread (4,147 vs 2,339, a 77.3% margin). The results depend on the benchmark methodology.

Q: How do they compare in multi-core rendering?

A: The EPYC 8224P wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core (38,607 vs 35,314, an 8.5% margin), but the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,463 vs 3,891, a 40.4% margin) and PassMark multi-thread (54,934 vs 45,421, a 20.9% margin). The EPYC’s higher core count helps in R23, but the Ryzen’s efficiency wins elsewhere.

Q: Which CPU is better for data encryption?

A: The EPYC 8224P is significantly better, winning PassMark data encryption by 24.1% (46,742 vs 35,455). It also wins data compression (702,065 vs 690,650, a 1.6% margin) and random string sorting (81,674 vs 76,177, a 6.7% margin).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 256.0 GB/s bandwidth over a quad-channel LPDDR5X bus, while the EPYC 8224P has 230.4 GB/s over a six-channel DDR5 bus. The Ryzen has higher peak bandwidth, but the EPYC has more channels.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the EPYC 8224P list ECC memory support as true in the specification data.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 8224P has 96 lanes of Gen 5 PCIe (CPU only), whereas the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 lanes of Gen 4 PCIe (CPU only). This is a major differentiator for server I/O.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 comes in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4,147 against the EPYC’s 2,339—a 77.3% advantage. This is replicated in the duplicate PassMark singlethread test with identical scores. The next biggest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core: the Ryzen scores 5,463 versus the EPYC’s 3,891, a 40.4% lead. The find prime numbers test shows a 47.1% edge (303 vs 206), and extended instructions show a 29.2% advantage (56,346 vs 43,614). Floating-point math is 22.9% better on the Ryzen (128,682 vs 104,698), and PassMark multi-thread shows a 20.9% lead (54,934 vs 45,421). Integer math is closer but still favors the Ryzen (200,665 vs 185,556, an 8.1% margin), as does physics (3,481 vs 3,236, a 7.6% margin).

The EPYC 8224P’s biggest win is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where it scores 5,450 versus the Ryzen’s 2,044—a 62.5% margin. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 42.4% advantage (549 vs 316). Data encryption is 24.1% better on the EPYC (46,742 vs 35,455). Cinebench R23 multi-core favors the EPYC by 8.5% (38,607 vs 35,314). Random string sorting is 6.7% better (81,674 vs 76,177), and data compression is 1.6% better (702,065 vs 690,650).

The pattern is consistent: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins all math, integer, and floating-point tests, plus multi-thread and physics. The EPYC 8224P wins all memory-centric data tests (compression, encryption, sorting) and the Cinebench single-core tests. The Cinebench multi-core results are split—the EPYC wins R23 by 8.5%, but the Ryzen wins R15 by 40.4%. This suggests the benchmarks stress different aspects of the architecture, with the Ryzen’s higher clock speed and Zen 5 efficiency benefiting older R15, while the EPYC’s additional cores and threads leverage the newer R23 workload.

The data also shows the overall average benchmark scores are close: the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 averages 77,740, and the EPYC 8224P averages 75,582. The Ryzen sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and the EPYC also sits at the 95th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Ryzen include the Threadripper PRO 9945WX (1.6% ahead) and the Core i9-14900K (1.7% behind), while the EPYC’s nearest rivals include the Core Ultra 9 285 (0.1% behind) and the Ryzen 9 9950X3D (0.3% behind). Both processors are firmly in the top tier of available CPUs, but their strengths are orthogonal.