Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G vs EPYC 8224P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8224P outperforms Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G by a whopping 398% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 241 | 1371 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 30.70 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 17.27 | no data |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | TSMC | no data |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | no data |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (2 years ago) | no data |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $855 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 2048 KB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 4096 KB |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 2x 73 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 17,750 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | no data |
| Socket | SP6 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4-2933 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8224P and Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | no data |
Synthetic benchmarks
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.71 | 5.16 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 4 |
| Threads | 48 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 65 Watt |
EPYC 8224P has a 398.3% higher aggregate performance score, 500% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 140% more advanced lithography process.
Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G, on the other hand, has 146.2% lower power consumption.
The AMD EPYC 8224P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 8224P is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 3350G is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
