AMD EPYC 7413 vs AMD EPYC 7F72 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two 24-core server processors into clear specialty zones. The AMD EPYC 7F72 wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 7413 takes only 4. The 7F72 dominates rendering workloads, compression, encryption, and physics simulation. The 7413 counterattacks in raw integer math, floating point math, and the narrow single-thread PassMark test.

For content rendering and media workloads, the 7F72 is the decisive choice. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 44829 against 43044, a 4.1% advantage. The same 4.1% edge appears consistently across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The 7F72 also leads PassMark multi-thread with 52740 versus 50641, again 4.1%. This consistency across the entire Cinebench suite points to a processor that simply executes threaded compute tasks with more efficiency.

Data center tasks favor the 7F72 even more strongly. PassMark data compression shows 808795 versus 715616, a 13% gap. Data encryption widens to 16%, with 56261 against 48492. Random string sorting, a proxy for database and search workloads, shows a 26.3% advantage for the 7F72 at 102436 versus 81134. The most dramatic difference is in PassMark physics: 6459 versus 4708, a 37.2% lead. Prime number finding also heavily favors the 7F72, 498 versus 397, a 25.4% margin. These are not marginal wins; they are workload-defining advantages.

The 7413 claims its territory in arithmetic-heavy workloads. PassMark integer math goes to the 7413 with 215629 against 181103, a 16% lead. Floating point math also favors the 7413, 118881 versus 108437, an 8.8% advantage. The 7413 also edges out the 7F72 in PassMark single-thread, 2400 versus 2384, a narrow 0.7% margin that appears in both single-thread listings. Extended instructions go narrowly to the 7F72, 46936 versus 45696, just 2.7%.

The overall average benchmark scores place the 7F72 at 85072, which sits in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The 7413 averages 80041, in the 95th percentile. The 7F72's nearest rivals are the Intel Core Ultra 9 290K Plus at 84003 (1.3% behind) and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K at 83807 (1.5% behind). The 7413's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon w5-2565X at 80671, which is 0.8% ahead, and the Intel Xeon 638 at 80723, also 0.8% ahead.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same 24-core, 48-thread configuration, but they come from different generations of AMD's EPYC roadmap. The 7F72 uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, while the 7413 uses Zen 3 with the Milan codename. Both are built on TSMC's 7 nm process, yet the transistor counts reveal a major internal difference. The 7F72 packs 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The 7413 contains 16,600 million transistors spread across four 81 mm² dies. The 7413 is a chiplet design with a much higher total transistor budget.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 7F72 provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 192 MB of shared L3. The 7413 reduces L1 to 64 KB per core but keeps 512 KB of L2 per core, while its shared L3 drops to 128 MB. The 7F72 therefore offers 50% more L3 capacity, which helps explain its dominance in data compression, encryption, and random string sorting. The 7413 compensates with a newer core architecture that is more efficient per clock.

Clock speeds also favor the 7F72. Its base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. The 7413 runs at 2.65 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. That is a 0.55 GHz base clock advantage for the 7F72, which directly contributes to its wins in single-thread Cinebench tests. The 7413's lower clocks come with a lower thermal envelope: 180 W TDP versus 240 W TDP for the 7F72.

Memory and I/O are nearly identical. Both support DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both enable ECC memory. PCIe Gen 4 is available on both, though the 7413 lists 128 lanes (CPU only) while the 7F72 lists simply Gen 4. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 and lack integrated graphics. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Release timing differs by roughly 11 months. The 7F72 launched on April 13, 2020, while the 7413 arrived on March 14, 2021. The 7413 belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, a branded family, while the 7F72 has no series designation in the database. Both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench multi-core tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 wins every Cinebench multi-core test. In R15 it scores 4518 versus 4338, in R20 18828 versus 18078, and in R23 44829 versus 43044. Each win is a consistent 4.1% margin.

Q: Does the newer Zen 3 architecture of the 7413 make it the better choice?

A: Not based on the recorded benchmarks. Despite using Zen 3, the 7413 loses 13 of 17 head-to-head tests. The 7F72's higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache produce better results in most measured workloads.

Q: Where does the 7413 outperform the 7F72?

A: The 7413 wins PassMark integer math (215629 versus 181103, a 16% lead), floating point math (118881 versus 108437, an 8.8% lead), and PassMark single-thread (2400 versus 2384, a 0.7% lead).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: PassMark physics shows the largest difference. The 7F72 scores 6459 against the 7413's 4708, a 37.2% advantage. PassMark random string sorting is close behind at 26.3%, and prime number finding at 25.4%.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The 7F72 averages 85072 across all benchmark tests, placing it in the 96th percentile of all CPUs. The 7413 averages 80041, in the 95th percentile. The 7F72's average is 6.3% higher.

Q: Do they use the same memory configuration?

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

Specification Differences

The two processors share cores, threads, socket, process node, foundry, memory type, memory channel count, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe generation, integrated graphics status, market segment, production status, and multiplier lock state. The differences are as follows:

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7F72 | AMD EPYC 7413 |

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

| Series | None listed | EPYC 7003 series |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Rome | Milan |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)) | EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) |

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.65 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 180 W |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 16,600 million |

| Die size | 74 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| L1 cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 192 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

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

| Release date | 2020-04-13 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $1825 |

| Part number | 100-000000141100-000000141WOF | 100-000000323100-100000323WOF |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 7F72 establishes its dominance early in the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4518 against 4338, a 4.1% win. Single-core R15 shows the same margin: 637 versus 612. R20 multi-core delivers 18828 versus 18078, again 4.1%, and single-core R20 hits 2657 versus 2551, a 4.2% edge. R23 multi-core lands at 44829 versus 43044, 4.1%, with single-core at 6328 versus 6076, 4.1%. The consistency of this 4.1% margin across every Cinebench iteration suggests a fixed clock and architecture advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The PassMark suite reveals where the 7F72 truly separates itself. Data compression shows 808795 versus 715616, a 13% advantage. Data encryption widens that to 16% with 56261 versus 48492. The physics test is the standout: 6459 versus 4708, a 37.2% blowout. Random string sorting delivers 102436 versus 81134, a 26.3% margin. Prime number finding hits 498 versus 397, 25.4%. Multi-thread overall goes to the 7F72 at 52740 versus 50641, 4.1%.

The 7413 answers with its own strong showings in arithmetic workloads. PassMark integer math is its biggest win: 215629 versus 181103, a 16% margin. Floating point math adds 118881 versus 108437, an 8.8% win. The single-thread PassMark test goes narrowly to the 7413, 2400 versus 2384, a 0.7% edge that appears identically in both single-thread entries. Extended instructions is the closest contest, with the 7F72 winning 46936 versus 45696, just 2.7%.

The wins break down as 13 for the 7F72 and 4 for the 7413. The 7F72's victories span rendering, compression, encryption, physics, sorting, and prime number workloads. The 7413's wins are concentrated in pure arithmetic and a marginal single-thread PassMark result. The data does not show a single test where both processors are within 1% of each other except for the PassMark single-thread tests, where the 7413 leads by 0.7%.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7F72 is the default recommendation for most workloads. It wins 13 of 17 tests, holds a 6.3% higher average benchmark score, and delivers decisive advantages in physics simulation (37.2%), random string sorting (26.3%), and prime number finding (25.4%). Its 192 MB of L3 cache and higher clock speeds make it the stronger choice for database workloads, encryption, compression, and rendering. The 96th percentile ranking versus the 7413's 95th percentile confirms its overall position.

The AMD EPYC 7413 is the specialist choice for arithmetic-heavy computation. Its 16% lead in integer math and 8.8% lead in floating point math indicate a core architecture that executes mathematical operations more efficiently. The 7413 also runs at a lower 180 W TDP, a meaningful difference for dense server deployments. Its Zen 3 architecture with 16,600 million transistors provides a more modern foundation, even if the benchmark results do not consistently translate that into wins.

For buyers prioritizing raw throughput in mixed workloads, the 7F72 is the clear pick. For deployments focused on integer or floating point math, or constrained by power, the 7413 deserves consideration. The 7F72's launch MSRP is not listed in the database, while the 7413 carries a launch MSRP of $1825, but pricing considerations aside, the performance data favors the 7F72 in most scenarios.