AMD EPYC 7513 vs AMD EPYC 9175F Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear split between two very different server processors. The AMD EPYC 7513 wins 5 of the 17 recorded tests, while the AMD EPYC 9175F takes 12. The pattern behind those wins is not random: it maps directly onto workload type. The EPYC 7513 dominates in data compression, encryption, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. The EPYC 9175F sweeps every Cinebench test, plus PassMark's multithread, physics, single-thread, prime number, and extended instruction workloads.

The EPYC 7513's wins are concentrated in memory-bandwidth-sensitive and parallel integer workloads. Its data compression score of 932240 is 7.5% ahead of the 9175F's 867186. The encryption advantage is far more pronounced at 50.4%, with 63628 versus 42297. Integer math shows a 23.8% lead (272145 vs 219800), and floating point math is 4% ahead (151713 vs 145939). Random string sorting favors the 7513 by 9.3% (104660 vs 95783). These results suggest the 32-core Zen 3 part retains an edge when the workload scales across many cores and benefits from large shared caches.

The EPYC 9175F's wins are equally decisive but in different arenas. Single-thread performance is where the newer architecture shows its strength: the 9175F scores 4256 in PassMark single-thread versus 2479, a 41.8% advantage. Physics performance also jumps 48.7% (9984 vs 5118), and prime number finding improves by the same 48.7% (741 vs 380). Extended instructions come in 20% higher (70529 vs 56451). Even in multithreaded PassMark, the 16-core 9175F beats the 32-core 7513 by 12.3% (67634 vs 59331). Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions: R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core, show the 9175F ahead by 9.8% each time.

The data implies two distinct design philosophies. The 7513 maximizes throughput on parallel, cache-friendly operations. The 9175F prioritizes per-core speed and efficiency, which pays off in latency-sensitive and lightly threaded tasks. Workloads that need massive core counts for encryption or compression should look at the 7513. Workloads that demand fast single-thread response or physics simulation should favor the 9175F.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations with fundamentally different designs. The EPYC 7513 uses Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC 9175F uses Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, on a 4 nm process, also from TSMC. The process shrink allows the 9175F to pack 133,040 million transistors across 16 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The 7513 contains 33,200 million transistors on 8 dies of 81 mm² each.

Core counts differ substantially. The 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds reverse the core-count relationship: the 7513 runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost, while the 9175F runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.00 GHz boost. This explains the single-thread performance gap. The 9175F draws more power at 320 W TDP versus 200 W, a direct consequence of those higher clocks.

Cache hierarchies reflect the generational leap. The 7513 offers 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. The 9175F increases L1 to 80 KB per core, doubles L2 to 1 MB per core, and quadruples L3 to 512 MB shared. The larger L3 on the 9175F likely contributes to its wins in extended instructions and prime number calculations, where working sets can fit in cache.

Memory support also differs. The 7513 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 9175F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. That is nearly triple the memory bandwidth, which may explain why the 9175F wins in multithreaded Cinebench despite having half the cores. PCIe capabilities differ too: the 7513 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the 9175F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The 7513 mounts on AMD Socket SP3, and the 9175F on AMD Socket SP5. Both support ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The 9175F lists integrated graphics as N/A, while the 7513 has no entry for that field. Release dates place the 7513 in March 2021 and the 9175F in October 2024, a gap of over three years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark gap belongs to the EPYC 9175F in PassMark physics and prime number tests, where it leads by 48.7% in both. Physics scores are 9984 versus 5118, and prime numbers are 741 versus 380. These workloads heavily reward clock speed and per-core efficiency, which the 9175F delivers through its 5.00 GHz boost clock and Zen 5 design.

PassMark single-thread shows a 41.8% advantage for the 9175F, with scores of 4256 versus 2479. This is the clearest indicator of architectural superiority per core. Extended instructions follow at 20% ahead (70529 vs 56451), suggesting the newer ISA implementation handles complex operations more efficiently.

The EPYC 7513 counters with a 50.4% win in data encryption (63628 vs 42297). This is the largest margin in either direction. Data compression shows 7.5% (932240 vs 867186), integer math 23.8% (272145 vs 219800), floating point 4% (151713 vs 145939), and random string sorting 9.3% (104660 vs 95783).

Cinebench results are uniform: the 9175F wins every variant by exactly 9.8%. R15 multi-core scores 5636 versus 5083, R15 single-core 795 versus 717. R20 multi-core 23487 versus 21181, R20 single-core 3315 versus 2989. R23 multi-core 55923 versus 50431, R23 single-core 7895 versus 7119. The consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates a stable performance advantage that scales with clock speed and IPC improvements, not workload-specific quirks.

PassMark multithread gives the 9175F a 12.3% win (67634 vs 59331), which is notable because the 7513 has twice the cores. This suggests the 9175F's higher bandwidth and larger cache compensate for its core deficit in mixed multithreaded workloads. The 7513 does not win a single Cinebench test, which means users expecting the 32-core part to dominate all multi-threaded scenarios will find that assumption challenged by the data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9175F has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Why does the 16-core EPYC 9175F beat the 32-core EPYC 7513 in multithreaded Cinebench?

A: The 9175F wins all Cinebench multi-core tests by 9.8%. This likely comes from its higher boost clock (5.00 GHz vs 3.65 GHz), larger L3 cache (512 MB vs 128 MB), and much higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s), which compensate for the core count disadvantage.

Q: Where does the EPYC 7513 have its biggest advantage?

A: The 7513 leads by 50.4% in data encryption (63628 vs 42297). It also wins integer math by 23.8%, random string sorting by 9.3%, data compression by 7.5%, and floating point math by 4%.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The 9175F scores 4256 in PassMark single-thread versus 2479 for the 7513, a 41.8% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core also favors the 9175F at 7895 versus 7119, a 9.8% difference.

Q: Do they use the same memory type?

A: No. The EPYC 7513 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, while the EPYC 9175F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus. The 9175F offers 576.0 GB/s bandwidth compared to 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Are the sockets compatible?

A: No. The EPYC 7513 uses AMD Socket SP3, and the EPYC 9175F uses AMD Socket SP5. They are not interchangeable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7513 | AMD EPYC 9175F |

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

| Cores | 32 | 16 |

| Threads | 64 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 4.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.65 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Milan | Turin |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 133,040 million |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | 16x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) | 512 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $2840 | $4256 |

Both processors support ECC memory, have no unlocked multiplier, and are listed as Active in production status. The 9175F lists integrated graphics as N/A, while the 7513 has no entry for that field.

The Verdict

The data directs different workloads to different processors. The AMD EPYC 7513 is the choice for encryption-heavy environments, where its 50.4% lead in data encryption makes it the clear winner. It also excels in integer math (23.8% ahead) and data compression (7.5% ahead), making it suitable for database operations, file compression pipelines, and cryptographic workloads that can utilize all 32 cores.

The AMD EPYC 9175F is the choice for performance-critical, latency-sensitive applications. Its 41.8% single-thread advantage and 48.7% physics lead indicate superiority in simulation, real-time analytics, and workloads that cannot effectively parallelize across many cores. The 512 MB L3 cache and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth suggest it can handle large working sets without hitting memory bottlenecks.

For mixed environments, the 9175F offers more balanced performance. It wins 12 of 17 benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests, and even beats the 7513 in multithreaded PassMark despite having half the cores. The 7513's wins are narrower on average, with its largest margin in encryption, but its overall average benchmark score of 102244 exceeds the 9175F's 95615. The 7513 also ranks at the 97th percentile versus the 9175F's 96th.

The 7513 sits closer to rivals like the AMD EPYC 8324P (1.1% behind) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX (1.2% ahead). The 9175F aligns with the AMD EPYC 4565P (0.2% behind) and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (0.5% ahead). These groupings reinforce the positioning: the 7513 competes in the high-core-count tier, while the 9175F competes in the high-frequency tier.

Users already invested in Socket SP3 platforms should consider the 7513 for upgrades. New deployments should weigh the 9175F's performance advantages against its higher TDP and newer platform requirements. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports matching the processor to the workload. Encryption and parallel integer processing favor the 7513. Single-thread speed, physics, and cache-heavy operations favor the 9175F.