AMD EPYC 9654P vs AMD Ryzen 5 8400F Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How do their benchmark scores compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 9654P scores 98,875 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 374.2% higher than the Ryzen 5 8400F's 20,851.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on AMD's Zen 4 architecture, but they use different process nodes: the EPYC 9654P uses a 5 nm process, while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses a 4 nm process.

Q: What type of memory do they support?

A: Both support DDR5 memory, but the EPYC 9654P uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 5 8400F has a higher boost clock at 4.70 GHz, while the EPYC 9654P boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do either of these processors include integrated graphics?

A: The EPYC 9654P has no integrated graphics, and the Ryzen 5 8400F also has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A).

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9654P wins decisively in every benchmark recorded in the database. In all six head-to-head benchmark tests, the EPYC 9654P takes the win, with deltas ranging from 374.2% to 375.0% over the Ryzen 5 8400F. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the EPYC 9654P leads by 375.0%, and the smallest gap appears in Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore, where it leads by 374.2%.

The Ryzen 5 8400F does not win a single head-to-head benchmark. However, it does hold its own in the average benchmark score category: the Ryzen 5 8400F posts an average benchmark score of 25,005, which is actually higher than the EPYC 9654P's average of 24,465. This is because the Ryzen 5 8400F has a larger suite of additional tests, including 3DMark and PassMark workloads, that are not part of the EPYC 9654P's recorded benchmark set.

For single-threaded workloads, the EPYC 9654P still leads despite its lower boost clock. The database records Cinebench R23 single-core scores of 13,958 for the EPYC 9654P versus 2,943 for the Ryzen 5 8400F, a 374.3% advantage. This suggests the EPYC's server-class design delivers far more per-clock performance in this test, even though the Ryzen 5 8400F has a higher boost clock.

The use case split is clear: the EPYC 9654P is built for massive parallel compute, with 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Ryzen 5 8400F targets desktop workloads with its 6 cores and 12 threads. The Ryzen 5 8400F does offer an unlocked multiplier, making it a more flexible platform for user-tuned performance, while the EPYC 9654P is locked.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen 4 architecture, but they come from different design families. The EPYC 9654P is part of the EPYC 9004 series with the codename Genoa, while the Ryzen 5 8400F belongs to the 8000 series with the codename Phoenix. The EPYC 9654P is manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses a 4 nm process, also at TSMC.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The EPYC 9654P contains 78,840 million transistors spread across a die size of 12x 72 mm², while the Ryzen 5 8400F has 25,000 million transistors on a single 178 mm² die. This reflects the EPYC's chiplet-based server design versus the Ryzen's monolithic desktop design.

Cache architecture also differs. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The key difference is in L3 cache: the EPYC 9654P has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 5 8400F has only 16 MB of shared L3 cache. This is a 24x difference in L3 capacity, which heavily favors the server processor in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory architecture is another major split. The EPYC 9654P supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with ECC, while the Ryzen 5 8400F supports dual-channel DDR5 without ECC. Memory bandwidth follows accordingly: 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9654P versus 83.2 GB/s for the Ryzen 5 8400F.

PCIe generations also differ. The EPYC 9654P provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 5 8400F provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). This positions the EPYC for high-bandwidth server I/O and the Ryzen for standard desktop connectivity.

Specification Differences

The EPYC 9654P and Ryzen 5 8400F differ across nearly every core specification. The EPYC 9654P has 96 cores and 192 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads for the Ryzen 5 8400F. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the EPYC 9654P and 4.20 GHz for the Ryzen 5 8400F. Boost clocks are 3.70 GHz and 4.70 GHz, respectively. TDP is 360 W for the EPYC 9654P and 65 W for the Ryzen 5 8400F.

Sockets differ completely: the EPYC 9654P uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Ryzen 5 8400F uses AMD Socket AM5. The market segments also differ, with the EPYC 9654P classified as Server/Workstation and the Ryzen 5 8400F as Desktop.

The EPYC 9654P has a launch MSRP of $10,625, while the Ryzen 5 8400F has a launch MSRP of $170. The multiplier is unlocked on the Ryzen 5 8400F but locked on the EPYC 9654P. Release dates are also different: the EPYC 9654P launched in November 2022, while the Ryzen 5 8400F launched in March 2024.

Both are listed as Active in production status. The EPYC 9654P has ECC memory support, the Ryzen 5 8400F does not. The EPYC 9654P uses a twelve-channel memory bus; the Ryzen 5 8400F uses dual-channel. Memory bandwidth is 460.8 GB/s for the EPYC 9654P versus 83.2 GB/s for the Ryzen 5 8400F.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows a dominant performance from the EPYC 9654P across all six recorded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9654P scores 9,966 versus 2,101 for the Ryzen 5 8400F, a 374.3% advantage. The single-core version of the same test shows the EPYC 9654P at 1,406 versus 296, a 375.0% lead.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. In multicore, the EPYC 9654P scores 41,527 versus 8,757, a 374.2% lead. In single-core, the EPYC 9654P scores 5,862 versus 1,236, a 374.3% advantage. The Cinebench R23 results are similar: multicore shows 98,875 versus 20,851, a 374.2% lead, and single-core shows 13,958 versus 2,943, also a 374.3% advantage.

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering between 374.2% and 375.0% across every test. This consistency suggests that the performance gap is driven primarily by the massive difference in core count and cache capacity rather than by workload-specific factors. The EPYC 9654P's 384 MB of L3 cache versus the Ryzen 5 8400F's 16 MB likely explains much of this gap in cache-sensitive tests.

The Ryzen 5 8400F does have its own set of additional benchmark scores in the database, including 3DMark and PassMark tests. In 3DMark, the Ryzen 5 8400F scores 951 single-thread, 1,874 at 2 threads, 3,563 at 4 threads, 5,275 at 8 threads, 6,091 at 16 threads, and 6,165 at max threads. PassMark results include 74,021 in integer math, 46,217 in floating point math, and 24,389 in multithread. These figures are not mirrored in the EPYC 9654P's benchmark set, so direct comparison is not possible for those workloads.

The EPYC 9654P sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 24,465. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11600 at 24,563 (0.4% behind), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 6650H at 24,364 (0.4% ahead), the Intel Core i5-12450HX at 24,576 (0.5% behind), and the Intel Core i7-1360P at 24,344 (0.5% ahead). These rivals are all mainstream or mobile processors, which underscores how the EPYC 9654P's average score is pulled down by its server-oriented benchmark set.

The Ryzen 5 8400F also sits at the 77th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 25,005. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F at 24,964 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i7-11850H at 24,935 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24,911 (0.4% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9474F at 25,103 (0.4% behind). Despite the massive head-to-head deficit against the EPYC 9654P, the Ryzen 5 8400F posts a higher average score because its benchmark suite includes more varied workloads.

The data shows that these two processors occupy entirely different performance tiers. The EPYC 9654P is a server-class part with 16 times the core count, 24 times the L3 cache, and over five times the memory bandwidth of the Ryzen 5 8400F. The Ryzen 5 8400F, meanwhile, offers a higher base clock, a higher boost clock, a smaller process node, and an unlocked multiplier. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, however, the EPYC 9654P wins all six tests with margins that never drop below 374.2%.