AMD EPYC 74F3 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 74F3 wins outright. There are zero tests where the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 takes the lead. That does not mean the smaller chip is useless, it means its strengths lie outside the rendering workloads captured here.

For heavily threaded workloads, the EPYC 74F3 is in a different league. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 51,566 against the V2546's 8,207. That is a 528.3% advantage, which translates to roughly six times the throughput. Any workload that scales across cores, such as video encoding, 3D scene rendering, or scientific simulation, will favor the EPYC part massively. Its 24 cores and 48 threads simply overwhelm the 6-core, 12-thread V2546.

Single-threaded performance also favors the EPYC, though the margin is similar rather than smaller. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7,279 versus 1,158, a 528.6% gap. This is unusual because typically a lower-core-count chip with a higher base clock would close the single-thread gap. Here, the EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost clock versus the V2546's 3.95 GHz boost is nearly identical, yet the EPYC still dominates. The architectural difference between Zen 3 and Zen 2 explains this, as the newer design extracts more instructions per clock.

The V2546's wins, if they exist at all, would come in power-constrained or space-constrained environments. Its 35W TDP versus the EPYC's 240W TDP means it can fit into systems where the EPYC simply cannot operate. The database shows the V2546 is classified as a Desktop segment part, while the EPYC is Server/Workstation. For fanless industrial PCs, thin clients, or embedded controllers, the V2546 is the practical choice, not because it benchmarks faster, but because it fits the physical and thermal envelope.

The data also shows both CPUs sit at the 69th percentile among all CPUs in the database. That is a useful equalizer: despite the enormous raw score differences, both parts are mid-to-upper tier in their respective contexts. The EPYC is a high-end server part, so 69th percentile reflects that it is not the absolute fastest available. The V2546 is a low-power embedded part, so 69th percentile means it punches above its weight class for what it is.

In summary: the EPYC wins every recorded benchmark, and it is the only choice for raw compute. The V2546 wins the unmeasured contest of efficiency and integration, thanks to its 35W TDP and bundled Radeon Graphics with 384SP.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different generations of AMD's design philosophy. The EPYC 74F3 is built on Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, while the V2546 uses Zen 2, codenamed Renoir. Both are manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, so the node is identical. The difference lies in the microarchitecture.

Zen 3 introduced a unified 8-core compute complex with direct access to shared L3 cache, which reduces latency compared to Zen 2's split design. This explains why the EPYC's single-core scores are dramatically higher despite nearly identical boost clocks. The EPYC's 4.00 GHz boost versus the V2546's 3.95 GHz is a 0.05 GHz difference, yet the Cinebench R20 single-core score is 3,057 versus 486, a 529% gap. Clock speed is not the deciding factor here; instructions per clock is.

Cache configuration differs enormously. The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the V2546 has 8 MB. That is a 32x difference in last-level cache. The EPYC also has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, identical per-core numbers to the V2546, but with 24 cores versus 6, the total on-chip storage is vastly larger. For workloads that fit in cache, such as database lookups or compression, the EPYC will avoid main memory access far more often.

The transistor count and die size tell the story of physical scale. The EPYC packs 33,200 million transistors across a multi-die design with 4x 81 mm² chiplets. The V2546 is a monolithic 156 mm² die with 9,800 million transistors. The EPYC uses a chiplet architecture to scale cores and cache, while the V2546 integrates everything on one piece of silicon, which is typical for low-power embedded parts.

Memory support also diverges sharply. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the V2546 is dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s. That 4x bandwidth difference matters for memory-hungry server workloads. The EPYC also offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the V2546 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 20 lanes. The V2546 does include integrated Radeon Graphics with 384SP, which the EPYC completely lacks, making the V2546 a complete system-on-chip.

Socket compatibility reinforces their separate worlds. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, a large server socket designed for high-core-count parts. The V2546 uses AMD Socket FP6, a compact BGA-style socket for embedded systems. They are not interchangeable in any way.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench tests in the database all follow the same pattern: the EPYC wins by a margin between 528.3% and 531.9%. These are not narrow victories; they are decisive, order-of-magnitude separations.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 5,197 against the V2546's 827, a 528.4% delta. In single-core for the same test, the EPYC scores 733 versus 116, a 531.9% delta. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison, and it occurs in the oldest test version, which tends to favor lower core counts relative to newer versions. Even here, the EPYC's architectural advantage is overwhelming.

Cinebench R20 shows a similar picture. Multi-core: 21,657 versus 3,446, a 528.5% delta. Single-core: 3,057 versus 486, a 529% delta. The margins are consistent, suggesting the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific. Whether the test scales across all 48 threads or runs on a single thread, the EPYC maintains roughly a 5.3x advantage.

Cinebench R23, the newest test in the database, confirms the trend. Multi-core: 51,566 versus 8,207, a 528.3% delta. Single-core: 7,279 versus 1,158, a 528.6% delta. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions is remarkable. It indicates that the EPYC's advantage is not tied to any specific workload optimization or test quirk, it is a fundamental architectural superiority.

The V2546 does have additional PassMark benchmarks in its record, but the head-to-head comparison only includes Cinebench tests. In those PassMark scores, the V2546 shows strengths in data compression (136,097), integer math (30,739), and floating-point math (18,534). These numbers are not compared against the EPYC in the recorded data, so no direct conclusion can be drawn. They do indicate that the V2546 is a capable general-purpose processor for its power class.

The average benchmark score also reflects the gap. The EPYC averages 14,915 across its recorded tests, while the V2546 averages 14,336. That is only a 4% difference in average score, which seems paradoxical given the 528% deltas in individual tests. The explanation is that the averages include different test suites, and the V2546's PassMark scores are numerous and reasonably strong, which pulls its average up. The Cinebench scores alone show a 5.3x separation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every measurable specification except for node size and memory type.

| Specification | AMD EPYC 74F3 | AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 6 |

| Threads | 48 | 12 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.95 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 35 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket FP6 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Milan | Renoir |

| Process node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 7 nm (TSMC) |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 9,800 million |

| Die size | 4x 81 mm² | 156 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 64 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 512 KB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 256 MB shared | 8 MB shared |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes | Gen 3, 20 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | None | Radeon Graphics 384SP |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release date | 2021-03-14 | 2020-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $2900 | Not available |

The base clock is one of the few places the V2546 leads. It starts at 3.00 GHz versus the EPYC's 2.80 GHz, a 7% higher base frequency. This is typical for lower-power parts that can sustain higher clocks at reduced core counts. The boost clock is nearly identical, with the EPYC at 4.00 GHz and the V2546 at 3.95 GHz.

The cache hierarchy shows the most dramatic difference after core count. Both use 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 256 MB on the EPYC versus 8 MB on the V2546. That 32x difference in shared L3 is the single largest specification gap between the two parts. It directly impacts how much data can be held on-chip, reducing latency and improving throughput for cache-resident workloads.

The EPYC also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes on the V2546. This makes the EPYC suitable for massive I/O configurations with multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, and network cards. The V2546 is limited to modest peripheral setups, which is consistent with its embedded target market.

The V2546 includes integrated Radeon Graphics with 384SP, a feature absent from the EPYC. This is significant for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The EPYC assumes a server environment with dedicated graphics or no display at all.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC has four times the cores and four times the threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 51,566 versus the V2546's 8,207, a 528.3% advantage. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R15 (528.4%) and R20 (528.5%).

Q: Does the Ryzen Embedded part have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the V2546 includes Radeon Graphics with 384SP. The EPYC 74F3 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The EPYC has a 240W TDP, while the V2546 has a 35W TDP. The V2546 uses roughly 15% of the power of the EPYC.

Q: Which processor supports more memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The V2546 uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC offers four times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC uses Zen 3 architecture, while the V2546 uses Zen 2.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 74F3 is the clear performance winner in every benchmark recorded in the database. All six Cinebench tests show it ahead by margins between 528.3% and 531.9%. For anyone building a server or workstation where raw compute throughput is the priority, the EPYC is the only sensible choice between these two. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory provide a platform for heavy multi-threaded workloads that the V2546 cannot approach.

The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 serves a completely different purpose. Its 35W TDP, integrated Radeon Graphics, and compact FP6 socket make it suitable for embedded systems, industrial PCs, and small form-factor devices where power draw and physical size matter more than raw benchmark scores. Its 3.00 GHz base clock is higher than the EPYC's 2.80 GHz, and its 3.95 GHz boost is nearly identical, but the architectural gap between Zen 2 and Zen 3 means it still loses every single-thread test by over 500%.

The choice comes down to context. If the system has a server motherboard with SP3 socket support, ample cooling, and a power budget that can handle 240W, the EPYC 74F3 is the obvious pick. If the system is a low-power embedded device with FP6 socket requirements, strict thermal limits, and a need for integrated graphics, the V2546 is the only option that fits. The database shows no scenario where the V2546 beats the EPYC in performance, but it also shows no scenario where the EPYC could physically replace the V2546 in an embedded design. Both processors occupy their respective niches correctly, and the 69th percentile ranking for both parts confirms they are solid mid-to-upper tier choices within their own categories.