AMD EPYC 7453 vs AMD EPYC 9174F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear and consistent pattern: the AMD EPYC 9174F outperforms the AMD EPYC 7453 in every single tested workload. Across six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 9174F claims all six wins, with no victories recorded for the EPYC 7453. The margins are remarkably uniform, ranging from 12.9% to 13% in favor of the newer processor.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9174F scores 4686 against 4151 for the EPYC 7453, a 12.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a nearly identical gap: 661 versus 585, which translates to a 13% lead. This consistency indicates that the performance difference is not workload-specific but rather reflects a fundamental architectural advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result repeats the 12.9% pattern: 19525 for the EPYC 9174F versus 17297 for the EPYC 7453. The single-core R20 score continues the trend, with 2756 against 2441, again a 12.9% margin. The R23 tests confirm the same story: multi-core scores of 46489 and 41185 represent a 12.9% lead, while single-core scores of 6563 and 5814 also show a 12.9% difference.

The uniformity of these deltas is striking. Every Cinebench generation, whether R15, R20, or R23, produces the same relative gap. This suggests that the EPYC 9174F's advantage comes from a combination of higher clock speeds and more efficient instruction execution per clock, rather than from any workload-specific optimization. The EPYC 9174F runs at a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the EPYC 7453 operates at 2.75 GHz base and 3.45 GHz boost. Higher clocks alone can explain much of the observed difference.

The average benchmark scores further contextualize these results. The EPYC 9174F has an average benchmark score of 12536, while the EPYC 7453 sits at 11912. The EPYC 9174F's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1230U with an average score of 12559 (just 0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i3-1215U at 12604 (0.5% ahead), and the Intel Atom x7809C at 12607 (0.6% ahead). The EPYC 7453's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914 (0% difference) and the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X at 12000 (0.7% behind). Both processors sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar tier in the overall performance distribution.

It is worth remembering the EPYC 9174F achieves these results with only 16 cores and 32 threads, while the EPYC 7453 offers 28 cores and 56 threads. Despite having nearly twice the core count, the EPYC 7453 still trails in every benchmark. This underscores the efficiency of the Zen 4 architecture and the high clock speeds of the 9174F. The 9174F's per-core performance is decisively superior, and even in multi-threaded workloads where the 7453 has more resources to draw upon, the 9174F maintains a double-digit lead.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F wins in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 661 versus 585 for the EPYC 7453, a 13% advantage. In R20, the scores are 2756 and 2441, and in R23, they are 6563 and 5814, both showing a 12.9% lead.

Q: Does the EPYC 7453's higher core count help it in multi-core workloads?

A: No. Despite having 28 cores and 56 threads versus 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 9174F, the 7453 loses all three multi-core Cinebench tests. The R15 multi-core score is 4151 against 4686, R20 is 17297 against 19525, and R23 is 41185 against 46489. Each time, the 9174F is ahead by 12.9%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The EPYC 9174F has an average benchmark score of 12536, while the EPYC 7453 has an average of 11912. The 9174F's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-1230U at 12559, a 0.2% difference. The 7453's closest rival is the Intel Core i7-7700 at 11914, with no difference in score.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The EPYC 9174F has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The EPYC 7453 has a base clock of 2.75 GHz and a boost clock of 3.45 GHz. The 9174F runs significantly faster in both modes.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9174F and the AMD EPYC 7453 support ECC memory. They differ in memory type: the 9174F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 7453 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: Both processors sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs. This means they outperform roughly two-thirds of all recorded processors in the database, despite their different architectures and core counts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9174F belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa. The AMD EPYC 7453 comes from the EPYC 7003 series, using the Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan. These are two distinct generations, and the architectural differences are substantial.

The process node is a major differentiator. The EPYC 9174F uses a 5 nm process, while the EPYC 7453 uses a 7 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the smaller node allows the 9174F to pack more transistors into a similar physical footprint. The 9174F contains 52,560 million transistors across a die size of 8x 72 mm². The 7453 contains 16,600 million transistors across a die size of 4x 81 mm². The 9174F uses more than three times the transistor count, spread across a larger total die area.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both processors share a 64 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the 9174F has 1 MB per core, while the 7453 has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache shows an even larger gap. The 9174F offers 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 7453 offers only 64 MB. This fourfold difference in L3 capacity can have a substantial impact on workloads with large working sets or frequent data sharing between cores.

The sockets are incompatible. The 9174F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 7453 uses AMD Socket SP3. This means they cannot be swapped into the same motherboard. The memory support also differs: the 9174F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 7453 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s. The 9174F offers more than double the memory bandwidth, which can be critical for memory-intensive server workloads.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The 9174F supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7453 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The newer Gen 5 standard doubles the per-lane bandwidth, making the 9174F more suitable for high-throughput peripherals and accelerators.

The 9174F was released on 2022-11-09, while the 7453 was released on 2021-03-14. The 9174F is the newer product by roughly a year and a half. Both processors are marked as Active in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Neither includes integrated graphics. Both target the server and workstation market segment.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive victory for the AMD EPYC 9174F across all measured benchmarks. With six wins out of six head-to-head tests and no wins for the EPYC 7453, the 9174F is the clear performance leader. The 12.9% to 13% margins in every Cinebench test show that this is not a marginal advantage but a consistent, repeatable gap.

Who should pick the EPYC 9174F? Any workload that benefits from raw single-thread performance or high clock speeds will favor this processor. Its 4.10 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost clocks, combined with the Zen 4 architecture and 5 nm process, deliver superior per-core performance. The 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth also make it attractive for database workloads, virtualization, and applications with large memory footprints. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 128 lanes provides headroom for modern storage and networking hardware.

Who should pick the EPYC 7453? The data shows it loses every benchmark, but it does offer 28 cores and 56 threads, nearly double the core count of the 9174F. For workloads that scale poorly with clock speed but well with core count, the 7453 might still be relevant, though the benchmark results do not support this in Cinebench. The 7453 also uses DDR4 memory, which may be more cost-effective in existing infrastructure, and it fits the SP3 socket, which may already be present in a server fleet. Its 225 W TDP is lower than the 9174F's 320 W TDP, which could matter in power-constrained environments.

The percentile rankings are identical at 67% for both, and the average benchmark scores are close: 12536 for the 9174F versus 11912 for the 7453, a difference of roughly 5%. The 9174F's nearest rivals are low-power mobile and desktop chips like the Intel Core i5-1230U and Core i3-1215U, while the 7453's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-7700 and Xeon Bronze 3408U. This suggests that the 9174F's high clock speeds push it into a different performance class than typical server parts, while the 7453 aligns more closely with older desktop processors in average score.

For new deployments where performance is the priority, the EPYC 9174F is the clear choice based on recorded data. For upgrades within an existing SP3 platform or for scenarios that value core count and lower power draw, the EPYC 7453 remains a viable option, but it cannot match the 9174F in any measured benchmark.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD EPYC 9174F and the AMD EPYC 7453:

• Series: EPYC 9004 series versus EPYC 7003 series
• Cores: 16 versus 28
• Threads: 32 versus 56
• Base clock: 4.10 GHz versus 2.75 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.40 GHz versus 3.45 GHz
• TDP: 320 W versus 225 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 versus AMD Socket SP3
• Architecture: Zen 4 versus Zen 3
• Codename: Genoa versus Milan
• Generation: EPYC (Zen 4 (Genoa)) versus EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan))
• Process node: 5 nm versus 7 nm
• Transistors: 52,560 million versus 16,600 million
• Die size: 8x 72 mm² versus 4x 81 mm²
• L2 cache: 1 MB (per core) versus 512 KB (per core)
• L3 cache: 256 MB (shared) versus 64 MB (shared)
• Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR4
• Memory bus: Twelve-channel versus Eight-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 Lanes versus Gen 4, 128 Lanes
• Release date: 2022-11-09 versus 2021-03-14
• Launch MSRP: $3850 versus $1570
• Part number: 100-100000796 versus 100-000000319

Both processors share the same L1 cache size (64 KB per core), support ECC memory, have no integrated graphics, target the same market segment, are Active in production, have locked multipliers, and are manufactured by TSMC. Both also sit at the 67th percentile among all CPUs.