AMD EPYC 74F3 vs AMD EPYC 75F3 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided in this comparison. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 75F3 takes the win every time. The EPYC 74F3 does not register a single victory in the head-to-head results. That does not mean the 74F3 is without merit; it simply means its advantages lie outside the measured Cinebench workload set.

The EPYC 75F3 wins in both single-core and multi-core disciplines. Its single-core advantage is consistent at roughly 6.3 to 6.4 percent across R15, R20, and R23. Its multi-core advantage is similarly uniform at 6.3 percent in all three Cinebench versions. This consistency suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific. The 75F3 is the faster chip in every rendering scenario the database tracked.

The EPYC 74F3, with its lower core count, lower base clock, and lower TDP, is the more power-conscious option. It consumes 240 watts versus 280 watts for the 75F3. In environments where thermal density or power delivery is constrained, the 74F3 may be the more practical fit, even if the raw benchmark scores favor its larger sibling. The data does not include power efficiency metrics, but the TDP difference is recorded and meaningful.

For workloads that scale with core count, the 75F3's 32 cores versus 24 cores gives it a clear structural edge. For workloads that are lightly threaded, the 75F3's higher base clock (2.95 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and identical 4.00 GHz boost clock still put it ahead, as the single-core benchmark results confirm. The 74F3 wins only in the sense of being a lower-power, lower-cost entry point into the same Milan platform, but the performance crown belongs entirely to the 75F3.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design. They are built on Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 platform, support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, and deliver 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, both offer PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, and both have integrated graphics absent from the package. The transistor count is identical at 33,200 million for both chips.

The core count is the primary differentiator. The EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 74F3 offers 24 cores and 48 threads. Cache configuration is also identical in structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The die layout differs, though. The 75F3 uses eight 81 mm² dies, while the 74F3 uses four 81 mm² dies. That means the 75F3 spreads its 32 cores across more silicon, while the 74F3 concentrates its 24 cores on fewer dies.

Base clock speeds differ: the 75F3 runs at 2.95 GHz, the 74F3 at 2.80 GHz. Boost clocks are identical at 4.00 GHz. The TDP gap of 40 watts (280 versus 240) reflects both the higher core count and the higher base clock of the 75F3.

Both processors launched on the same date, 2021-03-14, and both remain in active production. The launch MSRP for the 75F3 is $4860. The launch MSRP for the 74F3 is $2900. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not part of the equation. The part numbers are distinct: 100-000000313100-100000313WOF for the 75F3, and 100-000000317100-100000317WOF for the 74F3.

In essence, these are two implementations of the same architecture with different core counts, different base clocks, and different power envelopes. The 75F3 is the fuller expression of the Milan design; the 74F3 is a trimmed configuration with fewer cores and a lower base clock, but the same boost ceiling and the same 256 MB L3 pool.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 75F3 outperforms the AMD EPYC 74F3 in every Cinebench test logged in the database. The margins are consistent, hovering around 6.3 percent across multi-core and single-core workloads alike. The 75F3 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all CPUs at 70, compared to 69 for the 74F3. Its average benchmark score of 15859 exceeds the 74F3's 14915 by roughly 944 points, a gap of about 6.3 percent, which matches the per-test deltas.

Who should pick the 75F3? Anyone whose workload is dominated by rendering, simulation, or other compute-heavy tasks that benefit from more cores and higher clocks. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration, combined with a 2.95 GHz base clock and 4.00 GHz boost, makes it the stronger choice for multi-threaded throughput. Its single-core performance is also superior, so even lightly threaded applications will see a benefit, albeit a modest one.

Who should pick the 74F3? The data supports its use in power-constrained deployments. At 240 watts versus 280 watts, it draws less power. It also has a lower launch MSRP at $2900 versus $4860. For workloads that do not need 32 cores, the 24-core 74F3 still delivers strong performance, and its identical boost clock of 4.00 GHz means peak single-thread speed matches the 75F3. The 74F3 sits in the 69th percentile of all CPUs, only one point behind its larger sibling, so it is not a dramatically weaker part.

The nearest rival data adds context. The 75F3's average score of 15859 places it within 0.1 percent of the AMD Ryzen 5 40 (15882) and within 0.5 percent of the AMD EPYC 9334 (15940). It actually edges out the AMD EPYC 9354P by 0.2 percent. The 74F3, meanwhile, sits near the Intel Core i7-9750H (14886) and Intel Core i3-10320 (14852), while trailing the AMD EPYC 7702P by 1.4 percent. These comparisons show that both chips occupy a competitive mid-to-high tier, but the 75F3 is the better performer within this specific pairing.

The verdict is straightforward: the 75F3 is the faster processor in every measured dimension. The 74F3 is the more conservative choice in terms of power and price, but the benchmark record gives the performance crown to the 75F3 without qualification.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Do both chips use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 75F3 has a TDP of 280 watts, while the EPYC 74F3 has a TDP of 240 watts.

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

A: The EPYC 75F3 scores 7740 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 7279 for the EPYC 74F3, a margin of 6.3 percent.

Q: Do the two processors support the same memory configuration?

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

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as Active in production status, and both were released on 2021-03-14.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 75F3 scores 5526 against 5197 for the 74F3, a 6.3 percent advantage. In R15 single-core, the 75F3 scores 780 against 733, a 6.4 percent edge. That single-core delta is the largest in the entire comparison, slightly outpacing the other tests.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. The 75F3 posts 23028 in multi-core versus 21657 for the 74F3, again a 6.3 percent gap. In single-core, the 75F3 scores 3250 versus 3057, a 6.3 percent margin. The consistency of these numbers is notable. Across five of the six tests, the delta holds at exactly 6.3 percent. Only the R15 single-core test deviates, and only slightly, at 6.4 percent.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three versions, shows the same story. The 75F3 reaches 54829 in multi-core, while the 74F3 stops at 51566, a 6.3 percent difference. In single-core, the 75F3 scores 7740 against 7279, another 6.3 percent gap.

The average benchmark score reinforces the head-to-head data. The 75F3 averages 15859, while the 74F3 averages 14915. That is a difference of 944 points, or roughly 6.3 percent, matching the per-test deltas almost exactly. The percentile rankings are close, 70 for the 75F3 and 69 for the 74F3, but the raw scores tell a more definitive story.

For context, the 75F3's nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Ryzen 5 40 with an average score of 15882 (0.1 percent ahead of the 75F3), the AMD EPYC 9354P at 15826 (0.2 percent behind the 75F3), the Intel Core Ultra 5 134U at 15910 (0.3 percent ahead), and the AMD EPYC 9334 at 15940 (0.5 percent ahead). The 74F3's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-9750H at 14886 (0.2 percent behind the 74F3), the Intel Core i3-10320 at 14852 (0.4 percent behind), the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022 (0.7 percent ahead), and the AMD EPYC 7702P at 15130 (1.4 percent ahead).

The headline numbers are clear: the EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins that are almost perfectly consistent at 6.3 percent. The single outlier, the R15 single-core test, nudges up to 6.4 percent, but the overall pattern is one of uniform superiority. There is no workload category in the recorded data where the 74F3 closes the gap. The 75F3 is simply the faster part, across the board.