AMD EPYC 7513 vs AMD EPYC 9255 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9255 and AMD EPYC 7513 are both server CPUs positioned in the same 200W thermal envelope, but the recorded benchmark data shows they are not in the same performance league. The EPYC 9255, a Zen 5 based Turin part, wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head tests in the database, often by margins that make the comparison look like a generational rout rather than a close call. The EPYC 7513, a Zen 3 based Milan chip, holds exactly one win, in data encryption, and even that advantage is modest. Both CPUs sit in the 97th percentile against all processors in the database, which says more about how far server silicon has pulled away from the rest of the market than it does about the gap between these two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite tells a strikingly consistent story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9255 scores 6483 against 5083 for the EPYC 7513, a 27.5 percent lead. Single-core R15 goes the same way: 915 versus 717, a 27.6 percent gap. Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern almost exactly, with the 9255 taking multi-core 27013 to 21181 and single-core 3813 to 2989. Cinebench R23 lands at 64318 versus 50431 in multi-core and 9080 versus 7119 in single-core, both roughly 27.5 percent in favor of the newer chip. That consistency across three Cinebench generations is the key takeaway: the 9255's advantage is architectural, not a fluke of one workload.

What makes the Cinebench numbers remarkable is that the EPYC 9255 wins multi-core with fewer cores. It has 24 cores and 48 threads against 32 cores and 64 threads for the EPYC 7513. Per-core throughput on the Zen 5 part is therefore dramatically higher, driven by a 3.25 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost compared to 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost on the Milan chip.

The Passmark results spread wider. Physics is the most lopsided test of the entire set: 9740 for the EPYC 9255 against 5118 for the EPYC 7513, a 90.3 percent difference. Find prime numbers is nearly as brutal, 580 versus 380, a 52.6 percent lead for the 9255. Single-thread performance shows the same shape, 3655 against 2479, which is 47.4 percent in favor of the Turin part. Extended instructions, which is where newer instruction set support shows up, goes to the 9255 by 33.2 percent, 75185 to 56451. Passmark multithread lands at 76580 versus 59331, a 29.1 percent win for the 9255 despite the core count deficit.

The remaining tests are all 9255 wins at smaller but still clear margins. Floating point math: 183367 versus 151713, a 20.9 percent gap. Random string sorting: 129202 versus 104660, 23.4 percent apart. Integer math: 306442 versus 272145, 12.6 percent. Data compression: 1018904 versus 932240, 9.3 percent.

The EPYC 7513's sole victory is data encryption, 63628 versus 59668, a 6.2 percent win. It is a real result but a narrow one, and it does not offset the pattern elsewhere.

Context from the rivals list sharpens the picture. The EPYC 9255's average benchmark score of 116388 puts it within a fraction of a percent of the Intel Xeon 658X at 116060, ahead of the Intel Xeon 6527P at 115190, and behind the Intel Xeon w7-3565X at 118307 and the AMD EPYC 9384X at 120427. The EPYC 7513, with an average score of 102244, sits near the AMD EPYC 8324P at 103329, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX at 101041, and the AMD EPYC 4585PX at 99324, with the Intel Xeon 6521P at 105845 ahead of it. The two EPYCs therefore occupy different competitive tiers.

The Verdict

For any workload where raw throughput, per-core speed, or instruction throughput matters, the data points unambiguously to the EPYC 9255. It is roughly 27 percent faster in rendering, 29 percent faster in the Passmark multithread test, and nearly 50 percent faster in single-threaded work, all while drawing the same 200W TDP as the older chip. Buyers consolidating licensing-bound server workloads, where fewer faster cores beat more slower ones, get a double benefit here.

The EPYC 7513 makes sense only in narrow circumstances visible in the data. If a workload is dominated by the specific encryption path measured by the Passmark data encryption test, it holds a small edge. Its higher thread count of 64 could matter for highly parallel tasks that scale with thread count rather than per-thread speed, though the benchmark results show the 9255's per-thread advantage overwhelming that in every measured multi-threaded test. Otherwise, the 7513 is a Socket SP3 platform play: existing Milan-generation infrastructure that cannot accept the 9255's Socket SP5.

Architecture Differences

These are two full architecture generations apart. The EPYC 9255 uses Zen 5 cores under the Turin codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process, while the EPYC 7513 uses Zen 3 cores under the Milan codename on TSMC's 7 nm process. Transistor counts are close, 33,260 million for the 9255 versus 33,200 million for the 7513, but the chip configurations differ substantially: the 9255 uses 4 dies of 70.6 mm² each, while the 7513 uses 8 dies of 81 mm² each. The newer part delivers far more performance from similar transistor budgets, which is what a node shrink plus two architectural generations buys.

Cache hierarchy differs at every level. The Zen 5 part carries 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core; the Zen 3 part carries 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both share 128 MB of L3. Platform capabilities diverge sharply: the 9255 supports DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth and PCIe Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes, while the 7513 supports DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth and PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Memory bandwidth is nearly tripled on the newer platform, and both support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The spec sheet differs in nearly every row that matters. Core and thread counts: 24 cores and 48 threads for the EPYC 9255 versus 32 cores and 64 threads for the EPYC 7513. Clocks: 3.25 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost versus 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost. Both share a 200W TDP, so the 9255 delivers its large performance lead inside the same thermal budget.

Sockets are incompatible: Socket SP5 for the 9255, Socket SP3 for the 7513, meaning the two cannot be swapped in the same motherboard. The 9255 launched with a launch MSRP of $2495; the 7513 carried a launch MSRP of $2840. Both remain listed as active, production server and workstation parts. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither ships with integrated graphics. Release dates are separated by years: the 7513 arrived in March 2021, the 9255 in October 2024.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The EPYC 9255. It wins 16 of 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks, with an average benchmark score of 116388 versus 102244 for the EPYC 7513.

Q: Does the EPYC 7513 win anything?

A: Yes, one test. It scores 63628 in Passmark data encryption against 59668 for the 9255, a 6.2 percent advantage.

Q: How much faster is the 9255 in single-threaded work?

A: Passmark single-thread scores are 3655 for the 9255 versus 2479 for the 7513, a 47.4 percent lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 9080 versus 7119, about 27.5 percent.

Q: Do they use the same socket?

A: No. The EPYC 9255 requires Socket SP5; the EPYC 7513 requires Socket SP3. Platforms are not interchangeable.

Q: How does memory support compare?

A: The 9255 supports twelve-channel DDR5 at 576.0 GB/s. The 7513 supports eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which has more cores?

A: The EPYC 7513, with 32 cores and 64 threads versus 24 cores and 48 threads on the 9255. Despite that, the 9255 wins every measured multi-threaded benchmark except encryption.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9255 is the clear choice for rendering farms, given consistent 27.5 percent leads across every Cinebench multi-core test, and for simulation and physics workloads, where its 90.3 percent physics advantage is the largest gap in the dataset. It also dominates prime-number and integer-heavy compute (52.6 percent and 12.6 percent respectively), floating point work (20.9 percent), string sorting (23.4 percent), and any workload with meaningful single-threaded demands (47.4 percent). Its Gen 5 PCIe and 576 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the platform for bandwidth-hungry or accelerator-equipped systems.

The EPYC 7513's recorded strengths reduce to two things: the 6.2 percent encryption win and its 64-thread count for workloads that genuinely scale with threads rather than per-thread speed. Its realistic role in the data is as a drop-in option for existing Socket SP3, DDR4 platforms. For new builds, the benchmark record is not close: the EPYC 9255 wins essentially everywhere it was measured.