AMD EPYC 73F3 vs AMD EPYC 7453 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern across the Cinebench suite, with the AMD EPYC 7453 winning all six head-to-head comparisons against the AMD EPYC 73F3. The margins are uniform and narrow, ranging from 5.0% to 5.1% across both single-core and multi-core tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7453 scores 4151 against 3949 for the EPYC 73F3, a 5.1% advantage. The single-core result in the same test shows 585 versus 557, a 5% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score favors the EPYC 7453 at 17297 versus 16458, again a 5.1% difference, while the single-core score of 2441 versus 2323 also represents a 5.1% lead.

The Cinebench R23 results reinforce this trend. The EPYC 7453 delivers 41185 in multi-core compared to 39187 for the EPYC 73F3, and 5814 in single-core versus 5532. Both differences translate to 5.1% advantages for the EPYC 7453. The consistency of these deltas across every test suggests the performance gap stems from a fundamental architectural feature rather than workload-specific behavior.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The EPYC 7453 records an average of 11912, while the EPYC 73F3 averages 11334. Both processors sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in the same performance tier despite the EPYC 7453's higher raw scores.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each part provides additional context. The EPYC 7453's average score of 11912 nearly matches the Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914, with a delta of 0%. It sits slightly above the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X at 12000 (-0.7%) and the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U at 12019 (-0.9%). The EPYC 73F3's average of 11334 compares closely to the AMD EPYC 7402 at 11312 (+0.2%), the Intel Core i5-1145G7 at 11279 (+0.5%), and the AMD EPYC 7452 at 11279 (+0.5%).

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational architecture: Zen 3 on the Milan codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process, and designed for the AMD Socket SP3 platform. Neither has integrated graphics, both support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both provide PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory support is present on both, and both are marked as Active production status with an unlocked multiplier.

The core and cache configurations diverge significantly. The EPYC 7453 contains 28 cores and 56 threads, while the EPYC 73F3 contains 16 cores and 32 threads. This 12-core difference explains the multi-core benchmark results, although the EPYC 7453's win is smaller than one might expect from 75% more cores. The clock speeds tell part of that story: the EPYC 7453 has a base clock of 2.75 GHz and a boost clock of 3.45 GHz, while the EPYC 73F3 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The EPYC 73F3's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores.

Cache allocation is another major differentiator. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache, however, differs substantially: the EPYC 7453 has 64 MB shared, while the EPYC 73F3 has 256 MB shared. This four-fold L3 advantage for the EPYC 73F3 is notable, though the benchmark data does not show it translating into a performance win.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different packaging. The EPYC 7453 uses 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration, while the EPYC 73F3 uses 33,200 million transistors across an 8x 81 mm² configuration. The EPYC 73F3 thus has double the transistors and double the chiplet count, which aligns with its larger L3 cache.

Thermal design power differs slightly, with the EPYC 7453 rated at 225 W and the EPYC 73F3 at 240 W. The release dates are identical at March 14, 2021, and both belong to the EPYC 7003 series with the same Milan generation designation.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows the AMD EPYC 7453 as the clear winner in every recorded test. It outperforms the EPYC 73F3 by 5.1% in multi-core workloads and by 5.0% to 5.1% in single-core workloads across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. This consistency makes the choice straightforward for anyone prioritizing raw benchmark performance.

However, the EPYC 73F3 is not without its own merits. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.50 GHz and 4.00 GHz versus 2.75 GHz and 3.45 GHz) suggest it may excel in workloads that rely on clock speed rather than core count, even though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect this. Its 256 MB shared L3 cache is four times larger than the EPYC 7453's 64 MB, which could benefit certain data-intensive server workloads.

The EPYC 7453's 28 cores versus 16 cores gives it a substantial parallel processing advantage. For workloads that scale well with core count, the EPYC 7453 should be the preferred choice. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or cache-dependent, the EPYC 73F3's larger L3 and higher clocks may offer benefits that the Cinebench suite does not capture.

Both processors sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they belong to the same general performance class. The EPYC 7453's average benchmark score of 11912 exceeds the EPYC 73F3's 11334 by roughly 5.1%, consistent with the head-to-head results.

The EPYC 7453's launch MSRP is $1570, while the EPYC 73F3's launch MSRP is $3521. The EPYC 7453 both outperforms the EPYC 73F3 in every recorded benchmark and carries a lower launch MSRP, making it the data-driven choice for most scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several specification fields:

• Cores: EPYC 7453 has 28 cores; EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores
• Threads: EPYC 7453 has 56 threads; EPYC 73F3 has 32 threads
• Base Clock: EPYC 7453 at 2.75 GHz; EPYC 73F3 at 3.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: EPYC 7453 at 3.45 GHz; EPYC 73F3 at 4.00 GHz
• TDP: EPYC 7453 at 225 W; EPYC 73F3 at 240 W
• Transistors: EPYC 7453 at 16,600 million; EPYC 73F3 at 33,200 million
• Die Size: EPYC 7453 at 4x 81 mm²; EPYC 73F3 at 8x 81 mm²
• L3 Cache: EPYC 7453 at 64 MB shared; EPYC 73F3 at 256 MB shared
• Launch MSRP: EPYC 7453 at $1570; EPYC 73F3 at $3521
• Part Number: EPYC 7453 at 100-000000319; EPYC 73F3 at 100-000000321100-100000321WOF

Fields that are identical include socket (AMD Socket SP3), architecture (Zen 3), codename (Milan), process node (7 nm), foundry (TSMC), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (512 KB per core), memory support (DDR4), memory bus (Eight-channel), memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), ECC memory (true), PCIe (Gen 4, 128 lanes CPU only), integrated graphics (none), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), release date (2021-03-14), and multiplier unlocked (false).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 wins with a score of 41185 versus 39187 for the AMD EPYC 73F3, a 5.1% difference.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, four times more.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7453 has a boost clock of 3.45 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 73F3 has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Which processor has more transistors?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has 33,200 million transistors, while the AMD EPYC 7453 has 16,600 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7453 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In multi-core tests, its 28 cores and 56 threads deliver a 5.1% advantage over the EPYC 73F3 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the clear choice for parallel workloads such as compilation, rendering, and scientific computing that scale with core count.

The AMD EPYC 7453 also wins in single-core tests, with a 5.0% to 5.1% margin across all three Cinebench versions. This suggests that even for lightly threaded workloads, the EPYC 7453's architecture provides a slight edge despite the EPYC 73F3's higher clock speeds.

The AMD EPYC 73F3 does not win any recorded benchmark. However, its specification sheet suggests potential advantages in specific scenarios. Its 256 MB shared L3 cache is four times larger than the EPYC 7453's 64 MB, which could benefit workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, such as certain database operations or in-memory analytics. Its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz may also provide benefits in latency-sensitive applications where clock speed matters more than core count.

The EPYC 73F3's 8x 81 mm² die configuration and 33,200 million transistors indicate a more complex design, potentially offering better memory hierarchy behavior for certain server workloads. Yet the benchmark data does not reveal any workload where the EPYC 73F3 surpasses the EPYC 7453.

For users prioritizing measured performance in the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 7453 is the unambiguous choice. For users with specialized workloads that may exploit the EPYC 73F3's larger cache or higher clocks, the spec sheet suggests it could be competitive, but the recorded data provides no evidence of a win for the EPYC 73F3 in any benchmark category.