AMD EPYC 9354P vs AMD Ryzen 3 7440U Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9354P and AMD Ryzen 3 7440U represent opposite extremes of AMD’s Zen 4 portfolio: a 32-core server behemoth built for sustained throughput versus a 4-core mobile part designed for efficiency. The benchmark data confirms a near-total divergence in performance character, with the EPYC dominating multi-threaded workloads while the Ryzen takes a narrow, but notable, single-threaded victory. Both processors share the same architectural foundation, yet their physical and market realities could not be more different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9354P’s advantage in multi-threaded benchmarks is staggering. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 63,840 against the Ryzen 3 7440U’s 11,042, a delta of 478.2% in favor of the server chip. This pattern repeats across the entire Cinebench suite: R15 multi-core shows 6,434 versus 1,112 (478.6% delta), and R20 multi-core shows 26,812 versus 4,637 (478.2% delta). The consistency of these deltas—hovering near 478%—reflects a pure core-count scaling advantage, as both chips run identical Zen 4 cores at similar clocks under load.

Geekbench multi-core tells a similar story, though with a smaller margin. The EPYC scores 14,214 against the Ryzen’s 5,806, representing a 144.8% lead. This smaller delta likely stems from Geekbench’s mixed workload nature, which includes memory-latency-sensitive tasks where the Ryzen’s dual-channel DDR5 and smaller cache footprint are less of a penalty relative to the EPYC’s twelve-channel setup.

The single-core picture flips in one specific test. In Geekbench single-core, the Ryzen 3 7440U scores 2,003 versus the EPYC’s 1,605, a 19.9% advantage for the mobile chip. This is the only head-to-head win for the Ryzen, and it is driven by its 4.70 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.80 GHz. However, the Cinebench single-core results contradict this trend: the EPYC wins R15 (908 vs 156), R20 (3,785 vs 654), and R23 (9,012 vs 1,558) by margins of roughly 478-482%. The discrepancy suggests that Cinebench’s single-threaded workload benefits from the EPYC’s larger L3 cache (256 MB vs 8 MB) and higher sustained memory bandwidth, while Geekbench’s single-core test rewards the raw frequency ceiling of the Ryzen.

Across the eight head-to-head tests, the EPYC wins seven, with the Ryzen taking only Geekbench single-core. The EPYC’s win margins in Cinebench are so large (all above 478%) that they dwarf the Ryzen’s single victory, making the overall performance hierarchy unambiguous.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9354P is the clear choice for any workload that scales with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with 256 MB of shared L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s of twelve-channel memory bandwidth, make it a decisive winner in multi-threaded rendering, scientific simulation, and database processing. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 63,840 is more than five times the Ryzen’s output, indicating that tasks which can utilize more than a handful of threads will see transformative speedups. The EPYC’s 478.2% lead in R20 multi-core reinforces this: it is not merely faster, it is in a different performance class.

The Ryzen 3 7440U wins in a single, narrow scenario: Geekbench single-core, where its 4.70 GHz boost clock delivers a 19.9% edge over the EPYC’s 3.80 GHz. This suggests that latency-sensitive, lightly threaded applications that prioritize clock speed—such as certain interactive workloads or legacy single-threaded software—will run faster on the mobile chip. However, this advantage does not extend to Cinebench single-core, where the EPYC wins by over 478%, indicating that the Ryzen’s frequency advantage is not universal. The Ryzen also carries an integrated Radeon 740M GPU, which the EPYC lacks entirely, making it the only option for systems without a discrete graphics card.

For power-constrained environments, the Ryzen’s 28W TDP versus the EPYC’s 280W TDP is a decisive factor, though the data does not include thermal or efficiency benchmarks. The EPYC’s 52,560 million transistors across eight 72 mm² chiplets versus the Ryzen’s 20,900 million on a single 137 mm² die further underscores the server part’s brute-force approach.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Zen 4 architecture, but they diverge sharply in implementation. The EPYC 9354P, codenamed Genoa, is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process and consists of 52,560 million transistors across eight 72 mm² chiplets. It uses AMD Socket SP5, supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, and offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ryzen 3 7440U, codenamed Phoenix2, uses TSMC’s 4 nm process with 20,900 million transistors on a single 137 mm² die. It uses AMD Socket FP7, supports dual-channel DDR5, and provides 14 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Cache configurations are starkly different. The EPYC provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen also has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3. This 32x difference in L3 capacity is a primary driver of the EPYC’s multi-threaded dominance, as it can hold vastly more working set data on-die.

The EPYC’s base clock is 3.25 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz, while the Ryzen runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost. Despite the Ryzen’s higher boost, the EPYC’s 280W TDP allows for sustained all-core operation at near-boost clocks, whereas the Ryzen’s 28W TDP forces aggressive power management. Both chips support ECC memory, but the EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s is over five times the Ryzen’s 89.6 GB/s. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $2730, while the Ryzen is a mobile part with no listed launch MSRP. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 740M graphics; the EPYC has none.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core Geekbench score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U, scoring 2,003 against the EPYC 9354P’s 1,605, a 19.9% advantage.

Q: What is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9354P scores 63,840 versus the Ryzen 3 7440U’s 11,042, giving the EPYC a 478.2% lead.

Q: Do both processors use the same CPU architecture?

A: Yes, both use Zen 4, but the EPYC is built on a 5 nm process while the Ryzen uses 4 nm.

Q: Which processor supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 9354P supports 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Ryzen 3 7440U supports 14 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 7440U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon 740M graphics, while the EPYC 9354P has no integrated GPU.

Q: How does the L3 cache differ between the two?

A: The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen has 8 MB, a 32x difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: The AMD EPYC 9354P is overwhelmingly superior for multi-threaded, server-class workloads. Its 478.2% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and 144.8% lead in Geekbench multi-core make it the only rational choice for databases, virtualization, and batch processing. The 32-core/64-thread configuration, combined with 256 MB L3 and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivers a level of throughput that the 4-core Ryzen cannot approach. Any user running parallel compute tasks will see order-of-magnitude improvements with the EPYC.

The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U wins only in Geekbench single-core, where its 4.70 GHz boost clock provides a 19.9% edge. This makes it a niche pick for lightly threaded workloads that are latency-bound and cannot utilize the EPYC’s core count. Its integrated Radeon 740M graphics and 28W TDP also make it the only viable option for compact, power-efficient systems without discrete GPUs. However, its 8 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory severely limit its multi-threaded potential, as evidenced by its 11,042 Cinebench R23 score.

Given the benchmark results, the EPYC 9354P is the definitive choice for server and workstation users who prioritize raw compute density. The Ryzen 3 7440U is suitable for mobile or embedded scenarios where single-threaded speed and power efficiency are paramount, and where the lack of discrete graphics is acceptable. The 280W TDP versus 28W TDP gap makes the Ryzen the only logical option for battery-powered or passively cooled devices, but for any performance-critical multi-threaded task, the EPYC’s 7 out of 8 benchmark wins leave no ambiguity.