CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9015 and AMD EPYC 7313 are both 92nd-percentile server processors, but they achieve that status through radically different designs. The newer Zen 5 part is a low-core-count, high-clock specialist, while the older Zen 3 chip leans on a massive core count to crush throughput workloads. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the EPYC 7313 wins 9 of 11 head-to-head tests, yet the EPYC 9015 delivers a decisive victory in the single-threaded arena that matters for latency-sensitive tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in single-thread performance, where the EPYC 9015 scores 3265 points against the EPYC 7313’s 2402 in the PassMark single-thread test. That is a 35.9% advantage for the newer chip, a massive gap that reflects its higher 4.10 GHz boost clock versus 3.70 GHz on the EPYC 7313. This is the only category where the EPYC 9015 leads, but it is a commanding lead.

Everywhere else, the EPYC 7313’s 16 cores and 32 threads overwhelm the EPYC 9015’s 8 cores and 16 threads. The largest margin comes in integer math, where the EPYC 7313 posts 143648 versus 92524, a 35.6% deficit for the EPYC 9015. Data compression follows a similar pattern: the EPYC 7313 scores 525507 against 353014, a 32.8% gap. The encryption test shows the EPYC 7313 at 31881 versus 17790, a 44.2% deficit that is the biggest relative loss for the EPYC 9015 in any benchmark.

The multithread score, often a proxy for overall server throughput, favors the EPYC 7313 at 38644 versus 30689, a 20.6% difference. Floating-point math also goes to the EPYC 7313 with 78748 against 61615, a 21.8% gap. The physics test shows the EPYC 7313 ahead at 3899 versus 2893, a 25.8% margin. Random string sorting, which stresses memory and cache hierarchies, gives the EPYC 7313 a 57910 to 39772 win, a 31.3% advantage. Extended instructions favor the EPYC 7313 at 33430 versus 27970, a 16.3% gap. Even the find prime numbers test, which often rewards per-core speed, goes to the EPYC 7313 by a narrow 310 to 304, just 1.9% apart.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The EPYC 9015 averages 57555, while the EPYC 7313 averages 57399, a mere 0.3% difference. The nearest rival data shows both chips trading places with the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X: the EPYC 9015 is 0.1% ahead of that chip, while the EPYC 7313 is 0.2% behind it. Against the Intel Core i9-14900, the EPYC 9015 trails by 1% and the EPYC 7313 by 1.2%. The EPYC 9015 also sits 1.3% behind the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260M, while the EPYC 7313 is 1.5% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and process nodes. The EPYC 9015 uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, code-named Turin, while the EPYC 7313 uses Zen 3 on a 7 nm TSMC process, code-named Milan. This node advantage gives the EPYC 9015 a significant efficiency edge, reflected in its 125 W TDP versus 155 W for the EPYC 7313.

The transistor counts are nearly identical, with the EPYC 9015 at 16,630 million and the EPYC 7313 at 16,600 million, but the die layout differs. The EPYC 9015 uses 2x 70.6 mm² dies, while the EPYC 7313 spreads across 4x 81 mm² dies. This allows the EPYC 9015 to pack more performance per transistor, though the EPYC 7313 uses its larger die count to house twice as many cores.

Cache configurations reflect the different core counts. The EPYC 9015 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, while the EPYC 7313 has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is where the EPYC 7313 pulls ahead: it offers 128 MB shared versus 64 MB shared on the EPYC 9015. This doubling of L3 is critical for the EPYC 7313’s multi-threaded wins, as it reduces memory traffic for data-heavy workloads.

Memory support is a major architectural fork. The EPYC 9015 uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7313 sticks with DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, capping out at 204.8 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth advantage for the EPYC 9015, yet it does not translate into wins in the memory-sensitive random string sorting test, where the EPYC 7313’s larger core count and L3 cache compensate. Both chips support ECC memory, and both offer 128 PCIe lanes, but the EPYC 9015 uses Gen 5 while the EPYC 7313 is Gen 4.

The socket changes with the generation. The EPYC 9015 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the EPYC 7313 uses AMD Socket SP3. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC 9015 is newer, released in October 2024, while the EPYC 7313 launched in March 2021.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9015 is the clear choice for single-threaded workloads. Its 35.9% lead in single-thread performance means it will excel at tasks that cannot be parallelized, such as database queries with sequential dependencies, high-frequency trading algorithms, or lightly threaded application servers. The higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz is the primary driver here, and the Zen 5 architecture’s per-core efficiency means it can sustain that speed within a lower 125 W TDP. For any workload where latency per transaction matters more than total throughput, the EPYC 9015’s benchmark profile is compelling.

The EPYC 7313 dominates everything else. Its wins in data compression (32.8% ahead), integer math (35.6% ahead), and encryption (44.2% ahead) make it the better fit for bulk data processing, compression pipelines, and secure communication workloads. The multithread score advantage of 20.6% indicates strong performance in virtualized environments, container hosts, and parallel batch processing. The 128 MB of L3 cache versus 64 MB on the EPYC 9015 gives it a substantial edge for working sets that fit in cache, reducing the penalty from its slower DDR4 memory bandwidth.

The floating-point and physics wins, at 21.8% and 25.8% respectively, point to scientific computing and simulation workloads that scale across cores. The EPYC 7313’s random string sorting advantage of 31.3% suggests it handles sorting and data transformation tasks efficiently, despite the EPYC 9015’s superior memory bandwidth. The extended instructions gap of 16.3% indicates the EPYC 7313 is better for workloads that leverage AVX-style instruction sets across many cores.

In short, the EPYC 9015 wins where one thread matters most, while the EPYC 7313 wins where many threads can be brought to bear. The data shows that the EPYC 7313 is the more versatile server chip for general purpose workloads, but the EPYC 9015 is the specialist for latency-critical, single-threaded applications.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9015 scores 3265 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 35.9% higher than the AMD EPYC 7313’s score of 2402.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7313 in multithreaded workloads?

A: The EPYC 7313 scores 38644 in the PassMark multithread test, while the EPYC 9015 scores 30689. This represents a 20.6% advantage for the EPYC 7313.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9015 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7313 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache, a doubling for the older chip.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The EPYC 9015 supports DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7313 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The EPYC 9015 has a TDP of 125 W, while the EPYC 7313 has a TDP of 155 W, making the EPYC 9015 more power-efficient on paper.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9015 has an average benchmark score of 57555, while the EPYC 7313 averages 57399. The difference is 0.3%, effectively a tie.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9015 | AMD EPYC 7313 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 16 |

| Threads | 16 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 155 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Turin | Milan |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | 16,600 million |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 80 KB | 64 KB |

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

| L3 Cache (shared) | 64 MB | 128 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

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

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | $527 | $1083 |