AMD EPYC 7473X vs AMD EPYC 74F3 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 74F3 and AMD EPYC 7473X are both 24-core, 48-thread server processors built on the same Zen 3 architecture and 7 nm process, yet they deliver measurably different performance profiles. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, the EPYC 74F3 wins decisively, with a consistent advantage of roughly 2.3% to 2.4% over the EPYC 7473X in every test. The data indicates that the 74F3 is the faster processor for compute-heavy workloads, while the 7473X’s larger cache pool serves a different purpose that the benchmark suite does not fully capture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 74F3 leads the EPYC 7473X in every single benchmark recorded, making the comparison unusually one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 74F3 scores 5197 against the 7473X’s 5078, a 2.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result is similarly lopsided: 733 versus 716, a 2.4% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 21657 for the 74F3 and 21162 for the 7473X, again a 2.3% delta, while single-core shows 3057 versus 2987, also 2.3%. The largest absolute difference appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 74F3 posts 51566 against 50388, a 2.3% lead. Single-core R23 follows the pattern: 7279 versus 7113, a 2.3% margin.

These deltas are consistent but not dramatic. A 2.3% to 2.4% advantage across all six tests suggests a fundamental clock-speed or architectural efficiency edge rather than a workload-specific quirk. The 74F3’s boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus the 7473X’s 3.70 GHz explains part of this, as higher peak frequency directly benefits both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. The data shows no scenario where the 7473X pulls ahead; its wins column is empty, with six wins for the 74F3. For users whose primary metric is raw Cinebench throughput, the 74F3 is the unambiguous choice.

However, the average benchmark score context matters. The 74F3’s average is 14915, placing it in the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the 7473X averages 14574, also in the 69th percentile. Their nearest rivals differ: the 74F3 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-9750H (14886) and 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-10320 (14852), while the 7473X matches the Intel Xeon 6315P exactly (14574) and trails the AMD Ryzen 5 5500U by 0.1%. These comparisons underline that both chips occupy the same performance tier, but the 74F3’s slight edge is consistent enough to be considered a real differentiator.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 3 architecture, codename Milan for the 74F3 and Milan-X for the 7473X, and both are fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process with 33,200 million transistors. The socket is identical (AMD Socket SP3), as are the core count (24), thread count (48), base clock (2.80 GHz), and TDP (240 W). The critical divergence lies in the cache hierarchy and die layout. The 74F3 features a 256 MB shared L3 cache with a die size of 4x 81 mm², while the 7473X offers a substantially larger 768 MB shared L3 cache with a die size of 8x 81 mm². This triple-sized L3 is the hallmark of the Milan-X design, achieved by stacking additional cache dies, which doubles the number of dies from four to eight.

The L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L2 cache (512 KB per core) are identical between the two, so the extra cache in the 7473X is exclusively L3. For workloads that fit within the 256 MB L3 of the 74F3, the extra 512 MB in the 7473X provides no benefit — and the data confirms this, as the 7473X actually scores lower in every Cinebench test. Cinebench’s working set is relatively small and clock-bound, so the 7473X’s larger cache cannot compensate for its 0.30 GHz lower boost clock. The 74F3 also holds a release-date advantage, launching on 2021-03-14 versus the 7473X’s 2022-03-21, but both remain Active in production.

Memory support is identical: DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support. PCIe connectivity matches as well, with Gen 4 and 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked). The 74F3’s part number is 100-000000317100-100000317WOF, while the 7473X uses 100-000000507 WOF100-000000507. The launch MSRP differs, with the 74F3 at $2900 and the 7473X at $3900, reflecting the premium for the larger cache stack.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 74F3 wins in every scenario captured by the six Cinebench tests. That includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads across three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). For any user running CPU-bound rendering, simulation, or general compute tasks that scale with clock speed, the 74F3’s 4.00 GHz boost clock versus the 7473X’s 3.70 GHz provides a measurable, if modest, edge. The 2.3% multi-core advantage translates directly to faster completion times for batch rendering or scientific computing jobs that utilize all 48 threads.

The EPYC 7473X does not win any benchmark in the data, but its 768 MB L3 cache is a structural advantage for workloads that are not represented in this suite. Database workloads, large in-memory analytics, or virtualization environments with massive working sets could benefit from reduced memory latency, as the larger cache can hold more frequently accessed data closer to the cores. However, the fact pack provides no benchmark evidence for such scenarios — the only tests are Cinebench, and the 7473X loses all of them. Therefore, based strictly on the data, the 74F3 is the superior choice for any measured workload, while the 7473X’s cache advantage remains theoretical rather than demonstrated.

Another consideration is the percentile ranking. Both chips sit at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are neither top-tier nor entry-level. The 74F3’s average score of 14915 is 2.3% higher than the 7473X’s 14574, a gap that mirrors the head-to-head deltas. For single-threaded performance, the 74F3’s 7279 in R23 single-core is 2.3% ahead of the 7473X’s 7113, which matters for applications that are not perfectly parallelized. The 74F3 also edges out the 7473X in multi-threaded scaling, as shown by the R23 multi-core margin of 1178 points.

The Verdict

For buyers prioritizing raw compute performance as measured by Cinebench, the AMD EPYC 74F3 is the clear winner. It beats the EPYC 7473X in all six benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 2.3% to 2.4%. The 74F3’s higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz) is the primary driver, and this advantage holds across both single-core and multi-core tests. The 74F3 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $2900 versus the 7473X’s $3900, making it both faster and less expensive on paper. For any workload that resembles Cinebench — rendering, CPU-bound simulation, or general number crunching — the 74F3 is the data-backed choice.

The EPYC 7473X should only be selected by users who have a specific, demonstrated need for its 768 MB L3 cache. The fact pack does not include any benchmark where this cache advantage translates into a win; every measured test favors the 74F3. However, the 7473X’s triple-sized L3 (768 MB versus 256 MB) and doubled die count (8x 81 mm² versus 4x 81 mm²) suggest a design intent for memory-latency-sensitive workloads that fall outside Cinebench’s scope. If a workload’s footprint exceeds 256 MB and exhibits poor cache locality, the 7473X could theoretically outperform, but no data in this pack supports that claim. Without such evidence, the 74F3 is the safer, faster, and more economical recommendation.

Both processors share identical core counts, base clocks, TDP, memory bandwidth, and PCIe capabilities, so the decision reduces to clock speed versus cache size. The benchmarks weigh entirely in favor of clock speed. The 74F3 wins 6-0, with an average benchmark score of 14915 versus 14574. The 7473X’s only distinction is its cache capacity, which does not appear in any score. For a neutral database analysis, the verdict is unambiguous: the 74F3 outperforms the 7473X in every measured metric, and the 7473X’s cache premium lacks empirical justification in this data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 scores 51566 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 2.3% higher than the AMD EPYC 7473X’s 50388.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance between the two?

A: The 74F3 leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 7279 versus 7113 for the 7473X, a 2.3% advantage.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 74F3 and EPYC 7473X have 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: How does the L3 cache size differ between the two?

A: The EPYC 74F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7473X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache — a threefold difference.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The EPYC 74F3 boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the EPYC 7473X boosts to 3.70 GHz, a 0.30 GHz gap in favor of the 74F3.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 74F3 has an average benchmark score of 14915, compared to 14574 for the EPYC 7473X, placing both in the 69th percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 74F3 | AMD EPYC 7473X |

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

| Codename | Milan | Milan-X |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 768 MB (shared) |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2022-03-21 |

| Launch MSRP | $2900 | $3900 |

| Part Number | 100-000000317100-100000317WOF | 100-000000507 WOF100-000000507 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 14915 | 14574 |

| Nearest Rival (avgScore) | Intel Core i7-9750H (14886) | Intel Xeon 6315P (14574) |