AMD EPYC 74F3 vs AMD EPYC 9254 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9254 and the AMD EPYC 74F3 are both 24-core server processors, yet they represent distinct generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup. The 9254 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, built on the Zen 4 architecture (codenamed Genoa), while the 74F3 is part of the Zen 3 generation (codenamed Milan). The benchmark data in the database records a clean sweep for the newer part across all six tested Cinebench workloads, with a consistent performance margin of 5.6% in every single test. This uniformity makes the comparison straightforward, but the architectural differences behind that margin are substantial.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the AMD EPYC 9254 winning all six head-to-head comparisons, with each victory showing a 5.6% advantage over the AMD EPYC 74F3. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 9254 scores 5490 against 5197 for the 74F3. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern: 774 for the 9254 versus 733 for the 74F3. This consistency continues in Cinebench R20, where the multicore result is 22878 for the 9254 and 21657 for the 74F3, and the single-core result is 3229 versus 3057. The Cinebench R23 results confirm the trend, with the 9254 posting 54473 in multicore and 7690 in single-core, while the 74F3 trails at 51566 and 7279 respectively.

The fact that the delta is exactly 5.6% across every workload is notable. It suggests that the performance gap is not workload-dependent, but rather a uniform scaling advantage carried by the newer architecture. In multicore tests, both chips have the same core and thread count (24 cores and 48 threads), so the 5.6% lead reflects per-core efficiency gains rather than any parallel scaling advantage. In single-core tests, the same margin appears, reinforcing that the improvement is fundamental to how each core executes instructions.

The average benchmark score for the 9254 is 15756, placing it in the 69th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The 74F3 has an average score of 14915, also in the 69th percentile. Although both land at the same percentile, the raw difference in average score is 841 points, roughly 5.6% of the 74F3’s average. The nearest rivals for the 9254 include the AMD EPYC 9354P with an average score of 15826 and a delta of -0.4%, the AMD EPYC 75F3 at 15859 with a delta of -0.6%, the Intel Core i5-11400H at 15749 with a delta of 0%, and the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U at 15682 with a delta of 0.5%. These tight deltas indicate that the 9254 sits in a crowded performance band where fractions of a percent separate it from close competitors.

For the 74F3, the nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7702P with an average score of 15130 and a delta of -1.4%, the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022 with a delta of -0.7%, the Intel Core i7-9750H at 14886 with a delta of 0.2%, and the Intel Core i3-10320 at 14852 with a delta of 0.4%. The 74F3’s average score of 14915 is slightly above the i7-9750H and i3-10320, but slightly below the i3-1315U and the EPYC 7702P. This places the 74F3 in a different competitive neighborhood than the 9254, despite the identical core counts.

Interpreting the head-to-head results, the 9254 is not just faster; it is faster by a consistent margin that holds across single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads. For a server workload that relies on sustained multi-core throughput, the 54473 R23 multicore score represents a higher ceiling for batch processing. For single-threaded responsiveness, the 7690 R23 single-core score gives the 9254 an edge in lightly threaded tasks. The 74F3, while still a capable 24-core part, does not match that level of per-core performance in any recorded test.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for users who need the highest possible Cinebench scores in both single-core and multi-core scenarios. The AMD EPYC 9254 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with a uniform 5.6% lead over the AMD EPYC 74F3. No recorded test shows the 74F3 ahead, so any workload that resembles these rendering benchmarks will favor the 9254.

The 9254 also carries architectural advantages beyond raw benchmark scores. It supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus, whereas the 74F3 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus. The memory bandwidth figures differ dramatically: 460.8 GB/s for the 9254 versus 204.8 GB/s for the 74F3. For memory-intensive server workloads, this bandwidth gap could amplify the performance difference beyond the 5.6% seen in Cinebench. The 9254 also uses PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the 74F3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, offering newer I/O connectivity.

However, the 74F3 is not without its own merits. It has a larger L3 cache at 256 MB shared, compared to 128 MB shared on the 9254. It also has a lower base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, but the 9254 boosts higher to 4.15 GHz against 4.00 GHz. The 74F3 uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, while the 9254 requires the newer AMD Socket SP5. The 74F3 has a TDP of 240 watts versus 200 watts for the 9254, meaning the newer part delivers more performance at a lower thermal envelope.

Who should pick which? The 9254 is the choice for users building new systems on the SP5 platform, especially those who want DDR5 memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 I/O, and higher single-core and multi-core Cinebench scores. The 74F3 is suited for existing SP3 platforms where upgrading to a new socket is not an option, or where the larger L3 cache might benefit specific workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench suite. The recorded data does not show any test where the 74F3 wins, so the decision rests on platform compatibility and cache capacity rather than benchmark performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors differ across every major architectural dimension. The AMD EPYC 9254 is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa, manufactured on a 5 nm process node at TSMC. The AMD EPYC 74F3 uses the Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan, manufactured on a 7 nm process node, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the different process technologies: the 9254 has 26,280 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 72 mm², while the 74F3 has 33,200 million transistors across 4x 81 mm². The newer node allows the 9254 to pack more performance into a smaller die area, despite having fewer transistors.

Both processors have 24 cores and 48 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache differs: the 9254 has 1 MB per core, while the 74F3 has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is where the 74F3 holds an advantage, with 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the 9254. This doubling of L3 cache could benefit workloads with large working sets, though the Cinebench results do not show a win for the 74F3 in any recorded test.

Clock speeds are close but favor the 9254. The 9254 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.15 GHz, while the 74F3 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The 9254 also has a lower TDP of 200 watts, compared to 240 watts for the 74F3. The memory subsystem is a major differentiator: the 9254 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the 74F3 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 9254 uses PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the 74F3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes.

The sockets are incompatible: the 9254 uses AMD Socket SP5, and the 74F3 uses AMD Socket SP3. Both are server/workstation parts, both support ECC memory, and neither has integrated graphics. Both are listed as active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The release dates differ, with the 74F3 launching in March 2021 and the 9254 launching in November 2022, roughly a year and a half later.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 has a boost clock of 4.15 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD EPYC 74F3 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 74F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 9254.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 has a TDP of 200 watts. The AMD EPYC 74F3 has a TDP of 240 watts.

Q: Are the sockets the same for both processors?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9254 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the AMD EPYC 74F3 uses AMD Socket SP3. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Did the AMD EPYC 74F3 win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 9254 won all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a 5.6% advantage in every case.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9254 wins in every recorded benchmark category. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core scores favor the 9254 by 5.6%. The data shows no workload where the 74F3 takes the lead. For users prioritizing raw rendering performance, the 9254 is the stronger part.

The 9254 also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus, compared to 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus on the 74F3. This is more than double the bandwidth, which is critical for data-heavy server workloads. The 9254 also advances to PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, versus PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes on the 74F3, providing newer I/O capabilities.

The 74F3 wins on L3 cache capacity, with 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the 9254. In workloads that rely heavily on large cached datasets, this could be an advantage, though the Cinebench results do not reflect such a scenario. The 74F3 also has a higher TDP at 240 watts, which may indicate a higher power ceiling for sustained operation, but the 9254 achieves higher scores at a lower 200 watt TDP.

For platform compatibility, the 74F3 is the only choice for existing AMD Socket SP3 systems, as the 9254 requires the newer SP5 socket. Users with SP3 motherboards cannot upgrade to the 9254 without a full platform change. Conversely, new builds on SP5 will naturally favor the 9254 for its superior benchmark results and modern memory and I/O support.

In summary, the 9254 dominates the measured benchmarks and offers higher bandwidth and newer PCIe, while the 74F3 retains advantages in L3 cache size and legacy platform compatibility. The recorded data does not place the 74F3 ahead in any Cinebench test, making the 9254 the default recommendation for performance-focused workloads, with the 74F3 reserved for specific cache-sensitive or platform-bound scenarios.