AMD EPYC 9454P vs AMD Ryzen 3 30 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a deeply unusual comparison: the EPYC 9454P and Ryzen 3 30 occupy the same 74th percentile among all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores tell a story of divergent workloads. The EPYC 9454P posts an average benchmark score of 20,422, while the Ryzen 3 30 trails marginally at 20,137 — a difference of roughly 1.4% that masks the true nature of their respective strengths.

The EPYC 9454P dominates in multi-threaded rendering workloads with overwhelming margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9454P scores 81,492, a figure that dwarfs the Ryzen 3 30's complete absence from that test — the Ryzen 3 30 simply has no corresponding Cinebench scores in the data. Similarly, the EPYC 9454P achieves 34,226 in Cinebench R20 multi-core and 8,214 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, while the Ryzen 3 30 shows no comparable results. The EPYC's 48 cores and 96 threads, running at a base clock of 2.75 GHz and boost of 3.80 GHz, clearly fuel this massive rendering throughput.

Conversely, the Ryzen 3 30 brings its own benchmark portfolio to the table, one built around PassMark workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2,465 stands as the strongest single-core result between the two chips, since the EPYC 9454P's Geekbench single-core score of 2,011 and Cinebench single-core figures (1,159 in R15, 4,831 in R20, 11,504 in R23) cannot be directly compared across different test suites. The Ryzen 3 30's PassMark multithread score of 9,027, while modest, represents a complete workload profile that the EPYC 9454P lacks in this dataset.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip provides additional context. The EPYC 9454P sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 7713 (average score 20,363) and is effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20,425, deltaPct 0). The Ryzen 3 30, meanwhile, lands within 0.7% of the Intel Core i7-11800H (19,998) and trails the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U by 0.6% (20,249). These rival relationships suggest both chips perform at a similar aggregate level, but the benchmark composition could not be more different — the EPYC leans entirely on Cinebench and Geekbench results, while the Ryzen 3 30 relies exclusively on PassMark tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is stark, starting with their fundamental design philosophies. The EPYC 9454P belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa codename, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 48 cores and 96 threads into an AMD Socket SP5, with a transistor count of 52,560 million spread across an 8x 72 mm² die configuration. The Ryzen 3 30, by contrast, uses the older Zen 2 architecture with the Mendocino codename, manufactured on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, but with a single 100 mm² die containing just 4 cores and 8 threads on the mobile-oriented AMD Socket FT6.

Cache hierarchies diverge dramatically. The EPYC 9454P offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the headline feature is its 256 MB of shared L3 cache — a massive pool designed for server-scale data residency. The Ryzen 3 30 matches the 64 KB L1 per core but drops to 512 KB of L2 per core and a mere 4 MB of shared L3, a 64-fold difference in the final cache level. This L3 disparity alone explains why the EPYC excels in multi-threaded server workloads where large working sets must stay close to the cores.

Memory subsystems reinforce the split. The EPYC 9454P supports DDR5 across a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. The Ryzen 3 30 uses LPDDR5 on a dual-channel bus, capping at 88.0 GB/s, with no ECC support. PCIe connectivity also separates them: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 3 30 offers just Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), reflective of its mobile target. The Ryzen 3 30 does include integrated Radeon 610M graphics, whereas the EPYC 9454P has no integrated graphics at all — a logical trade-off for a server part that expects discrete or virtualized display solutions.

Power envelopes could not differ more. The EPYC 9454P carries a TDP of 290 watts, while the Ryzen 3 30 sips at 15 watts. That 275-watt gap underscores the EPYC's server-centric design versus the Ryzen's ultra-portable ambitions, and it directly influences the benchmark profiles each chip can sustain.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to clear domain separation. The EPYC 9454P wins decisively in any workload that scales with core count and thread parallelism. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 81,492, R20 multi-core of 34,226, and R15 multi-core of 8,214 all demonstrate exceptional rendering and compute throughput, driven by 48 cores and 96 threads. For server virtualization, database workloads, scientific computing, or any batch processing that can utilize dozens of threads, the EPYC 9454P is the obvious choice — its 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth provide the data-feeding infrastructure such workloads demand.

The Ryzen 3 30 wins in the mobile and efficiency segment. Its PassMark results show a balanced profile: 29,846 in integer math, 14,448 in floating-point math, 14,431 in random string sorting, and 6,461 in data encryption. These scores, while lower in absolute terms than the EPYC's Cinebench figures (which are not directly comparable across suites), indicate a capable processor for everyday computing tasks. The single-thread score of 2,465 suggests respectable responsiveness for light workloads, and the 15-watt TDP means this chip can operate in fanless or passively cooled designs where the EPYC's 290-watt envelope would be impossible.

The Ryzen 3 30's PassMark data compression score of 135,834 is notably strong, suggesting efficient handling of compression algorithms relative to its modest core count. The extended instructions score of 6,075 and physics score of 436 round out a profile suitable for embedded and low-power applications. Neither chip shows wins over the other in direct head-to-head benchmarks — the dataset lists zero wins for each — because they share no common benchmark tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 9454P, with 48 cores and 96 threads, achieves 81,492 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 34,226 in R20 multi-core, and 8,214 in R15 multi-core. The Ryzen 3 30 has no Cinebench results in the data, so no direct comparison exists, but its 4 cores and 8 threads would not plausibly match those figures.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9454P averages 20,422 across its benchmarks, while the Ryzen 3 30 averages 20,137 — a difference of 285 points, or roughly 1.4%. Both sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The EPYC 9454P supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, including ECC. The Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, without ECC.

Q: Do either include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Ryzen 3 30 includes integrated graphics, specifically the Radeon 610M. The EPYC 9454P has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The EPYC 9454P has a TDP of 290 watts, while the Ryzen 3 30 has a TDP of 15 watts — a 275-watt difference that reflects their server versus mobile design targets.

Q: Which has more cache?

A: The EPYC 9454P has 256 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core. The Ryzen 3 30 has 4 MB of shared L3 and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core.

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story of two processors built for entirely different worlds. The EPYC 9454P is a server-grade behemoth — 48 cores, 96 threads, 256 MB L3, 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes — that posts stratospheric Cinebench multi-core scores like 81,492 in R23. Its 290-watt TDP and Socket SP5 platform place it squarely in datacenter racks, where workloads like virtualization, large-scale rendering, and data analytics can exploit its massive parallelism.

The Ryzen 3 30 is a mobile-first chip with 4 cores, 8 threads, 15-watt TDP, and integrated Radeon 610M graphics. Its PassMark results, including a 2,465 single-thread score and 9,027 multithread score, indicate adequate performance for lightweight mobile tasks, embedded systems, or fanless designs. The 6 nm process and 100 mm² die keep manufacturing simple, and the LPDDR5 support aligns with low-power memory.

Who should pick which? The data points to the EPYC 9454P for anyone running server or workstation workloads that demand maximum thread scaling and cache capacity — the 256 MB L3 alone justifies its selection over the Ryzen 3 30 for data-heavy server tasks. The Ryzen 3 30 suits mobile or ultra-low-power applications where the 15-watt TDP and integrated graphics eliminate the need for discrete components, and where the 88.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is sufficient. Neither chip wins head-to-head because they never compete — their benchmark suites are mutually exclusive, and their architectural priorities are diametrically opposed. The choice is not about which is better, but which fits the intended environment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9454P | AMD Ryzen 3 30 |

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

| Cores | 48 | 4 |

| Threads | 96 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.75 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 290 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket FT6 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Genoa | Mendocino |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 6 nm |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 100 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | LPDDR5 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 88.0 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon 610M |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2025-09-30 |

| Launch MSRP | $4598 | N/A |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | N/A |