AMD EPYC 9454 vs AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE Comparison

This comparison pits a 48-core server behemoth against a 6-core desktop APU. The data shows a complete sweep for the EPYC 9454 in the tested Cinebench suite, but the numbers tell only part of a story defined by platform, memory support, and integrated graphics. Here is a breakdown of what the benchmark results actually mean for someone choosing between these two AMD processors.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454 wins decisively in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 73,375 against the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE’s 12,045, a 509.2% advantage. The margin is consistent across R15 (7,396 vs 1,213) and R20 (30,817 vs 5,058).

Q: Is the EPYC 9454 also faster in single-core tests?

A: Yes, despite the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE having a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.80 GHz). The EPYC 9454 leads by roughly 509-510% in all single-core Cinebench tests. For example, R23 single-core shows 10,358 for the EPYC versus 1,700 for the Ryzen.

Q: What are the major architectural differences?

A: The EPYC 9454 is a Zen 4 (Genoa) chip on a 5 nm process with 48 cores and 96 threads. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is Zen 2 (Renoir) on 7 nm with 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC also has 256 MB of L3 cache versus 8 MB, and supports DDR5 memory, while the Ryzen uses DDR4.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics. The EPYC 9454 has no integrated graphics. This is a key difference for systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU.

Q: Which CPU has higher power consumption?

A: The EPYC 9454 has a 290 W TDP, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE has a 35 W TDP. This is a massive difference that affects cooling requirements, operating cost, and system density.

Q: Are both CPUs currently in production?

A: Yes, both have a production status of "Active." However, they target entirely different markets: the EPYC 9454 is for server/workstation use, while the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is a desktop part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational and functional. The EPYC 9454 is built on Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Genoa) using a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 48 cores and 96 threads, with a transistor count of 52,560 million spread across eight 72 mm² dies. Its cache layout features 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE uses the older Zen 2 architecture (codenamed Renoir) on a 7 nm process. It is a monolithic 156 mm² die with 9,800 million transistors. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with the same 64 KB L1 per core but half the L2 at 512 KB per core, and a modest 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a difference of 32x in L3 capacity.

Memory support is another fundamental divergence. The EPYC 9454 uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE uses a dual-channel DDR4 bus, delivering just 51.2 GB/s. This 9x bandwidth difference directly impacts memory-hungry workloads. The EPYC also provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), versus 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes on the Ryzen.

The EPYC 9454 is a server-class part with a 290 W TDP, designed for multi-socket platforms. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is a 35 W desktop APU that includes integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics. Both support ECC memory, but the platforms, sockets (SP5 vs AM4), and memory types are wholly incompatible.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9454 wins in every benchmark category included in this data set. All six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in multi-core and single-core variants) go to the EPYC with deltas around 509-510%. This is not a close contest; it is a demonstration of a core-count and IPC advantage.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE’s only "win" is in platform suitability. It has integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks. For a small desktop or office machine that does not need heavy compute, the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is a functional choice with low power draw. It also uses a widely available AM4 socket, while the EPYC requires a server-grade SP5 platform.

The data does not show any benchmark where the Ryzen wins. However, the presence of Passmark tests (data compression, encryption, physics, etc.) only in the Ryzen’s benchmark list suggests a broader testing profile was available for it, but the head-to-head Cinebench results are the only direct comparisons provided. For any raw processing power task, the EPYC is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9454 | AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE |

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

| Series | EPYC 9004 series | 4000 series |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Genoa | Renoir |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | 9,800 million |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 156 mm² |

| Cores | 48 | 6 |

| Threads | 96 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 2.75 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| TDP | 290 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 20 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Vega 7 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2022-11-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $5225 | Not provided |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a complete shutout. The EPYC 9454 wins all six Cinebench tests, and the deltas are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7,396 against 1,213, a 509.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 1,044 versus 171, a 510.5% delta.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. Multi-core scores are 30,817 for the EPYC and 5,058 for the Ryzen, a 509.3% difference. Single-core is 4,350 versus 714, a 509.2% delta. The R23 results are consistent: multi-core is 73,375 versus 12,045, and single-core is 10,358 versus 1,700, both at roughly 509% differences.

The uniformity of the deltas (all between 509.2% and 510.5%) suggests the performance gap scales linearly across all tested workloads. This indicates that the EPYC’s advantage comes from both its higher core count and its superior per-core performance in these benchmarks. The Ryzen’s higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) does not compensate for the architectural and core-count deficit.

The wins for the EPYC are absolute: 6 wins, 0 losses. The Ryzen has no head-to-head benchmark victory in this data. The avg benchmark score for the EPYC is 21,223, while the Ryzen sits at 20,900, a 1.5% difference in overall average. However, this average is skewed by the fact that the Ryzen has additional Passmark tests in its sample, which are not present for the EPYC.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9454 is overwhelmingly faster in every measurable CPU benchmark provided. If your workload is compute-bound and you can support the platform requirements, the EPYC 9454 delivers roughly 500% more performance in Cinebench tests. Its 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, and DDR5 memory bandwidth make it a server-class processor designed for heavy multi-threaded workloads.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is not a competitive alternative on performance. It wins no benchmarks and offers a fraction of the cache and memory bandwidth. Its strengths lie entirely in its integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics and its 35 W TDP, which make it suitable for a low-power desktop system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU.

The choice is dictated by use case. For a server, workstation, or any task requiring maximum throughput, the EPYC 9454 is the only option of the two. For a standard desktop with light to moderate workloads, the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is a functional, power-efficient choice, but the data warns that it will not handle demanding processing tasks well. The benchmark results show a 509% gap in favor of the EPYC across the board, and no scenario in this data set flips that outcome.