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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data splits cleanly along workload type. The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins 6 of 15 direct comparisons, while the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P takes 9. The Ryzen's victories are concentrated in single-thread performance, PassMark multithread throughput, and specific instruction-set tests. The EPYC dominates in most multi-core rendering, physics simulation, data encryption, and sorting workloads.

The single-thread gap is the most dramatic split in the entire comparison. In PassMark single-thread, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 scores 4078 against the EPYC's 2357, a 73% advantage. That is the largest delta in either direction across every recorded benchmark. Cinebench R23 single-core tells the opposite story, however: the EPYC scores 5864 versus 2012.5 for the Ryzen, a 65.7% deficit for the Ryzen. The Cinebench R15 single-core test also favors the EPYC, with 590 against 306, a 48.1% gap. The database records both PassMark and Cinebench single-thread results, and they point in opposite directions, which indicates the two test suites exercise very different instruction paths.

Multi-core results also split by benchmark. The EPYC wins Cinebench R23 multicore with 41542 against 35061, a 15.6% margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Ryzen wins that specific test with 5247 versus 4187, a 25.3% lead. PassMark multithread goes to the Ryzen with 51502 against 48873, a 5.4% edge. The EPYC counters in PassMark integer math at 193256 versus 190720, a 1.3% margin, and PassMark random string sorting at 85505 against 70150, an 18% margin. The EPYC also wins PassMark data compression at 681754 versus 639356, a 6.2% lead.

The remaining wins for the EPYC include PassMark data encryption at 43619 against 32840, a 24.7% margin, PassMark physics at 4110 against 3189, a 22.4% gap, and PassMark find prime numbers at 286 versus 284, a 0.5% difference, which is nearly negligible. The Ryzen wins PassMark extended instructions at 13% ahead of the EPYC, 52067 to 46091, and PassMark floating point math at 120533 to 120066, a 0.4% gap.

The averages confirm the overall picture. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 posts an average benchmark score of 80762, against 76492 for the EPYC. The Ryzen sits at the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the EPYC also sits at the 95th percentile. The Ryzen's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon 638 at an average score of 80723, which is effectively a 0% delta. The EPYC's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 76513, also a 0% delta. The two processors are in different performance classes despite sharing a percentile.

Where Each One Wins

For single-thread dominant workloads, the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 is the clear choice if you trust the PassMark result, but the Cinebench R23 single-core test favors the EPYC by a very large margin. The database shows contradictory single-thread results, so the verdict depends on the specific software. PassMark single-thread points to the Ryzen at 73% ahead. Cinebench R23 single-core points to the EPYC at 65.7% ahead. Cinebench R15 single-core also favors the EPYC at 48.1% ahead. Anyone selecting between the two should match the benchmark suite to the target application.

The EPYC Embedded 8224P wins in memory-sensitive sorting and compression workloads. PassMark random string sorting at 85505 versus 70150 is an 18% win. PassMark data compression at 681754 versus 639356 is a 6.2% win. Data encryption at 43619 versus 32840 is a 24.7% win. Physics simulation at 4110 versus 3189 is a 22.4% win. These all point toward server and data-center style workloads where the EPYC's higher core count and memory channels matter.

The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 wins in passmark extended instructions at 52067 versus 46091, a 13% margin, and in passmark multithread at 51502 versus 48873, a 5.4% margin. It also wins passmark floating point math at 120533 versus 120066, a 0.4% margin, and the Cinebench R15 multicore test at 5247 versus 4187, a 25.3% margin. The Ryzen also wins the passmark single-thread test at 4078 versus 2357, a 73% margin. These wins suggest the Ryzen handles instruction-heavy and floating-point-heavy code well, plus the older Cinebench R15 multi-core workload.

For integer math, the EPYC wins 193256 to 190720, a 1.3% margin, which is modest. For prime number workloads, the EPYC wins 286 to 284, a 0.5% margin, which is effectively a tie. Neither processor has a meaningful edge in those two tests. The Ryzen's 6 wins versus the EPYC's 9 wins means the EPYC takes the majority, but the Ryzen's single-thread PassMark advantage is the largest single delta anywhere in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher PassMark single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 scores 4078, which is 73% higher than the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P's 2357.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins with a score of 41542, which is 15.6% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 35061.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has an average benchmark score of 80762, and the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has an average benchmark score of 76492.

Q: How do the two processors compare in data encryption performance?

A: The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P wins passmark data encryption with a score of 43619, which is 24.7% ahead of the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395's 32840.

Q: Which processor has the larger number of cores and threads?

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

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Specification Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The EPYC has more cores and threads, but the Ryzen has a much higher boost clock.

The thermal design power differs substantially. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a TDP of 55, while the EPYC Embedded 8224P has a TDP of 160. The socket types differ: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP11, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6.

Memory support differs in type and channel count. The Ryzen supports LPDDR5X with a quad-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 256.0 GB/s. The EPYC supports DDR5 with a six-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. The Ryzen has a higher memory bandwidth figure, but the EPYC has more memory channels.

PCIe support differs significantly. The Ryzen has PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC has both a newer PCIe generation and far more lanes.

The Ryzen includes integrated graphics, the Radeon 8060S, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics recorded. The market segments differ as well: the Ryzen is listed as Mobile, and the EPYC is listed as Server/Workstation.

The release dates differ. The Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 has a release date of 2025-01-05, and the EPYC Embedded 8224P has a release date of 2023-09-17. Both processors have active production status and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Strix Halo, and it belongs to the Ryzen AI Max+ PRO (Zen 5) generation. It is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC. The AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture with the codename Siena, and it belongs to the EPYC (Zen 4c (Siena)) generation. It is built on a 5 nm process node at TSMC. The Ryzen uses a newer process node.

The EPYC has recorded transistor and die size data: 17,750 million transistors and a die size of 2x 73 mm². The Ryzen has no transistor count or die size recorded in the database.

Cache layouts differ in the L1 cache. The Ryzen has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, and the EPYC has 64 KB of L1 cache per core. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The EPYC is part of the EPYC 8004 series, while the Ryzen has no series designation recorded. The part numbers differ as well: the Ryzen is 100-000001243, and the EPYC is 100-000001418.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Ryzen has a market segment of Mobile with integrated Radeon 8060S graphics, while the EPYC targets Server/Workstation with no integrated graphics. The EPYC's Zen 4c cores are designed for density-optimized server workloads, while the Ryzen's Zen 5 cores are aimed at high-performance mobile and AI workloads.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P for multi-core rendering, rendering-heavy Cinebench R23 workloads, data encryption, compression, sorting, physics simulation, and integer-heavy server tasks. It wins 9 of 15 head-to-head benchmarks, including the Cinebench R23 multicore at 15.6% ahead, data encryption at 24.7% ahead, random string sorting at 18% ahead, physics at 22.4% ahead, and data compression at 6.2% ahead. It has 24 cores and 48 threads, DDR5 memory support with six channels, PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes, and a 5 nm process node. It also has a 64 GB shared L3 cache and 1 MB L2 per core.

Choose the AMD Ryzen AI Max+ PRO 395 for single-thread PassMark workloads, floating point math, extended instructions, PassMark multithread, and the Cinebench R15 multicore test. It wins the PassMark single-thread test by 73%, the largest delta in the entire comparison. It also wins PassMark extended instructions by 13%, PassMark multithread by 5.4%, PassMark floating point math by 0.4%, and Cinebench R15 multicore by 25.3%. It has a 4 nm process node, a boost clock of 5.10 GHz, a TDP of 55, LPDDR5X memory with quad-channel support, and integrated Radeon 8060S graphics.

The data does not declare a single winner, because the two processors occupy different segments. The EPYC belongs in server and workstation deployments, where its 48 threads and six-channel memory bus serve throughput-heavy workloads. The Ryzen belongs in mobile platforms, where its 55 TDP and integrated graphics enable high performance in compact systems. Both sit at the 95th percentile of all CPUs, and their average scores place them near different rivals. The Ryzen's average of 80762 sits near the Intel Xeon 638 at 80723, while the EPYC's average of 76492 sits near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX at 76513. The EPYC is the majority winner in head-to-head tests, but the Ryzen's single-thread PassMark dominance and lower TDP make it the better choice for latency-sensitive and power-constrained environments.