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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split between these two AMD processors. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins 9 of the 15 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P takes 6. But the margin of victory tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395's most dominant showing comes in single-threaded PassMark testing, where it scores 4147 against the EPYC's 2357 — a massive 75.9% advantage. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The gap persists in Cinebench R15 single-core, though the direction reverses: the EPYC scores 590 versus the Ryzen's 316, a 46.4% swing in the opposite direction. That inconsistency between benchmark suites is striking and worth examining closely.

In multi-threaded workloads, the results are equally contradictory. The EPYC Embedded 8224P takes Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 41542 against the Ryzen's 35314, a 15% advantage. Yet the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins Cinebench R15 multicore decisively, posting 5463 against the EPYC's 4187 — a 30.5% lead. These two Cinebench versions are telling different stories about sustained multicore performance.

The PassMark suite provides additional clarity. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 leads in PassMark multithread with 54934 versus 48873, a 12.4% margin. It also wins floating-point math (128682 vs 120066, up 7.2%), integer math (200665 vs 193256, up 3.8%), extended instructions (56346 vs 46091, up 22.2%), and prime number finding (303 vs 286, up 5.9%). Data compression is nearly a tie, with the Ryzen ahead just 1.3% (690650 vs 681754).

The EPYC Embedded 8224P counters with wins in data encryption (43619 vs 35455, up 18.7%), physics simulation (4110 vs 3481, up 15.3%), and random string sorting (85505 vs 76177, up 10.9%). These are meaningful margins, particularly in encryption where the EPYC's advantage approaches one-fifth over the Ryzen.

Both processors sit at the 95th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 77740 for the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 versus 76492 for the EPYC Embedded 8224P. The delta between them is just 1.6% in the Ryzen's favor. In the nearest rivals comparison, the EPYC sits within 0.9% of the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and within 0.4% of both the AMD Ryzen 9 8945HX and Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX.

The Verdict

The data presents two distinctly different performance profiles. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 is the clear winner for single-thread responsiveness and general-purpose compute. Its 75.9% lead in PassMark single-thread performance is not a marginal edge; it is a category-level difference. For applications that depend on quick single-core execution — interactive workloads, lightly threaded applications, latency-sensitive tasks — the Ryzen is the obvious choice based on these numbers.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, despite having 24 cores and 48 threads versus the Ryzen's 16 cores and 32 threads, does not dominate every multicore test. It wins Cinebench R23 multicore by 15% and Cinebench R15 single-core by 46.4%, but loses Cinebench R15 multicore by 30.5% and PassMark multithread by 12.4%. The EPYC's strengths are more specialized: encryption, physics, and string sorting.

The average benchmark scores place these processors within 1.6% of each other, and both rank at the 95th percentile. Neither processor is objectively superior across the board. The choice depends entirely on workload priorities. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 suits users who need strong all-around performance with exceptional single-thread capability. The EPYC Embedded 8224P suits users whose workloads involve substantial encryption, simulation, or sorting tasks where its specific advantages matter more than raw multithread throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 wins in scenarios requiring high single-thread performance, floating-point computation, and general multithreaded throughput. Its PassMark single-thread score of 4147 is the standout metric, suggesting it handles interactive and latency-sensitive applications with ease. The floating-point math advantage of 7.2% and integer math advantage of 3.8% indicate solid scientific and computational performance. The extended instructions win of 22.2% points to strong SIMD and vectorized workload capability. For data compression, the 1.3% edge is marginal but still a win. Prime number finding, up 5.9%, suggests reasonable cryptographic and number-theoretic performance.

The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins where its larger core count and server-oriented design pay off. Data encryption performance is 18.7% higher, which is significant for security-focused workloads. Physics simulation is 15.3% higher, indicating better performance in physics-based computation. Random string sorting is 10.9% higher, suggesting advantages in certain data processing tasks. The Cinebench R23 multicore win of 15% shows sustained multithreaded rendering capability. The Cinebench R15 single-core win of 46.4% is surprising for a server chip, but the data is unambiguous.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has an average benchmark score of 77740, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P scores 76492. The Ryzen leads by 1.6%.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC has 50% more cores and threads.

Q: What is the largest single benchmark margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in PassMark single-thread testing, where the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 scores 4147 versus the EPYC's 2357, a 75.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor wins Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 41542, compared to the Ryzen AI Max+ 395's 35314, a 15% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P support ECC memory.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 has a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s with quad-channel LPDDR5X support. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 230.4 GB/s with six-channel DDR5 support.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process node, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². It is built on the Strix Halo codename and targets the mobile market segment, using the AMD Socket FP11. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture on a 5 nm TSMC process node, with a die size of 2x 73 mm². It belongs to the EPYC 8004 series with the Siena codename, targeting the server/workstation segment via the AMD Socket SP6.

Cache configurations are similar in L3 capacity — both have 64 MB of shared L3 cache and 1 MB of L2 per core. The L1 cache differs: the Ryzen has 80 KB per core while the EPYC has 64 KB per core. The EPYC lists 17,750 million transistors, while the Ryzen's transistor count is not specified.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 uses LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and 256.0 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC Embedded 8224P uses DDR5 with a six-channel memory bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC's six-channel configuration provides more memory channels, though the Ryzen's LPDDR5X achieves higher aggregate bandwidth.

PCIe capabilities differ substantially. The EPYC Embedded 8224P supports Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen AI Max+ 395 supports Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). This is a major difference for expandability and I/O throughput. The EPYC's 96 Gen 5 lanes represent a six-fold increase in lane count and a generational upgrade in PCIe bandwidth.

The Ryzen AI Max+ 395 includes integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen's base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, while the EPYC runs at 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Ryzen has a 55W TDP, while the EPYC has a 160W TDP. The Ryzen was released on 2025-01-05, while the EPYC came earlier on 2023-09-17. Both are currently in active production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.