AMD EPYC 7413 vs AMD EPYC 8224P Comparison

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7413 dominates the head-to-head comparison against the AMD EPYC 8224P, winning 16 of the 17 recorded benchmarks. The only exception is a narrow victory for the EPYC 8224P in random string sorting, where it scores 81,674 against 81,134, a margin of 0.7%. Every other workload, from single-core rendering to multi-threaded integer math, favors the older EPYC 7413 by a significant degree.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7413’s advantage is consistent and often large. In Cinebench tests, the 7413 is exactly 10.3% ahead of the 8224P across all six variants: R15 multicore (4,338 vs 3,891), R15 single-core (612 vs 549), R20 multicore (18,078 vs 16,214), R20 single-core (2,551 vs 2,289), R23 multicore (43,044 vs 38,607), and R23 single-core (6,076 vs 5,450). This uniform delta suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than any workload-specific architectural benefit.

PassMark results tell the same story but with varying margins. The 7413 wins integer math by 13.9% (215,629 vs 185,556) and floating point math by 11.9% (118,881 vs 104,698). The gap widens dramatically in passmark physics, where the 7413 scores 4,708 against 3,236, a 31.3% lead. The most extreme difference is in the find prime numbers test: 397 for the 7413 versus 206 for the 8224P, a crushing 48.1% advantage.

The 7413 also leads in the remaining PassMark workloads, though by smaller margins. Data compression is 1.9% ahead (715,616 vs 702,065), data encryption is 3.6% ahead (48,492 vs 46,742), and extended instructions are 4.6% ahead (45,696 vs 43,614). In single-thread performance, the 7413 leads by 2.5% (2,400 vs 2,339), and in the multi-thread PassMark score, it leads by 10.3% (50,641 vs 45,421). The overall average benchmark score reinforces this verdict: the 7413 averages 80,041 points, while the 8224P averages 75,582.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7413 is the clear winner for almost every compute-heavy workload. Its strengths are most pronounced in processor-bound tasks like prime number calculation, where the 48.8% lead indicates a substantial per-core throughput advantage. It also excels in physics simulations (31.3% ahead) and integer math (13.9% ahead), making it the preferred choice for scientific computing, data analysis, and any software that relies heavily on arithmetic operations.

The EPYC 8224P’s only victory is in random string sorting, where it edges ahead by 0.7%. This is a narrow, nearly negligible lead, and it suggests the 8224P has a slight edge in memory-access patterns or sorting algorithms. However, this single result does not offset its consistent 10% to 14% deficits in most other tests.

For single-threaded applications, the 7413 is again the better option, with a 2.5% lead in the PassMark single-thread test and a 10.3% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. Even in data compression, where memory bandwidth might matter, the 7413 comes out ahead by 1.9%. The data indicates the 7413 is the superior processor for nearly any task, with the 8224P only marginally competitive in one niche test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core Cinebench score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7413 wins by 10.3% in all multi-core Cinebench tests. In R23 multicore, it scores 43,044 versus 38,607 for the EPYC 8224P. In R20 multicore, it scores 18,078 versus 16,214.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare?

A: The EPYC 7413 is faster in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 6,076 vs 5,450, a 10.3% lead. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 2,400 vs 2,339, a 2.5% lead.

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

A: The biggest difference is in the PassMark find prime numbers test, where the EPYC 7413 scores 397 and the EPYC 8224P scores 206, a 48.8% advantage for the 7413. The second largest gap is in one of the physics tests, with a 31.3% lead for the 7413 (4,708 vs 3,236).

Q: Does the EPYC 8224P win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8224P wins the PassMark random string sorting test by a narrow 0.7% margin, scoring 81,674 versus 81,134 for the EPYC 7413.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7413 has a higher average benchmark score of 80,041, while the EPYC 8224P averages 75,582. This places the 7413 about 6% higher overall.

Q: Are both processors in the 95th performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7413 have a percentile rank of 95 against all CPUs, based on the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications, which explains their performance gap. The EPYC 7413 has a higher base clock of 2.65 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz, compared to the EPYC 8224P’s 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The TDP also differs, with the 7413 rated at 180 W and the 8224P at 160 W.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The EPYC 7413 supports DDR4 memory and has an eight-channel memory bus, offering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 8224P supports DDR5 memory and has a six-channel bus, with a higher theoretical bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. Despite the 8224P’s higher bandwidth, the 7413’s higher clock speeds and core architecture proved decisive.

The PCIe configuration also differs: the 7413 offers PCIe Gen 4 lanes with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 8224P offers PCIe Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are different as well: the 7413 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 8224P uses AMD Socket SP6. The EPYC 7413 has a launch MSRP of $1825, and the EPYC 8224P has a launch MSRP of $855. Both have ECC memory support and are unlocked. The release dates are not the same: the 7413 was released in March 2021, while the 8224P was released in September 2023.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7413 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, with the codename Milan. It is fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 16,600 million transistors and a die size of 4x 81 mm². Its L2 cache is 512 KB per core, and its L3 cache is 128 MB shared.

The EPYC 8224P uses the newer Zen 4c architecture, with the codename Siena. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 17,750 million transistors and a die size of 2x 73 mm². Its L2 cache is larger at 1 MB per core, but its L3 cache is smaller at 64 MB shared. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core.

These architectural differences explain the performance results. The Zen 4c design on the 8224P is optimized for density and efficiency, hence the smaller L3 cache and lower clock speeds. The Zen 3 design of the 7413 uses a larger L3 cache and higher clocks, which translates directly into better single-thread and multi-thread performance in the benchmarks. The 7413’s 128 MB L3 cache likely contributes to its strong lead in prime number and physics tests, while the 8224P’s 5 nm process does not compensate for the clock deficit.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the AMD EPYC 7413 is the superior processor for almost any workload. It wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, with a minimum 1.9% advantage and a maximum 48.8% advantage. Its higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache give it a decisive edge in single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks alike.

The EPYC 8224P is only a recommended if the specific workload is random string sorting, where it edges out the 7413 by 0.7%. It also offers a higher memory bandwidth (230.4 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s) and a newer PCIe Gen 5 interface, but these do not translate into performance wins in any of the recorded tests. For any server or workstation task requiring raw compute performance, from Cinebench rendering to PassMark physics and integer math, the EPYC 7413 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 80,041, compared to 75,582 for the 8224P, summarizes the overall performance hierarchy.