AMD EPYC 7573X vs AMD Ryzen 3 210 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a completely one-sided picture. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7573X wins every single contest, with a consistent deltaPct of -81 relative to the AMD Ryzen 3 210. That negative delta indicates the Ryzen 3 210 trails by 81% in each workload, a margin that leaves no ambiguity about the performance hierarchy between these two processors.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7573X scores 59,017 against the Ryzen 3 210's 11,198. The Ryzen 3 210 manages only about 19% of the EPYC's output, which is expected given the massive core-count disparity. The single-core results tell a similar story, though with less dramatic separation: the EPYC 7573X posts 8,331 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Ryzen 3 210 reaches 1,581. That 5.3x gap in single-threaded performance is substantial, indicating the EPYC's higher per-core throughput despite a lower boost clock.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7573X scores 24,787 multi-core and 3,499 single-core, while the Ryzen 3 210 scores 4,703 and 664 respectively. The deltaPct remains at -81 for both, suggesting the performance ratio is stable across Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 7573X reaches 5,948 multi-core and 839 single-core; the Ryzen 3 210 manages 1,128 and 159. Again, the -81 deltaPct applies uniformly.

The overall benchmark averages place both processors in the same percentile band — both sit at the 71st percentile versus all CPUs. The Ryzen 3 210 has an average benchmark score of 17,321, while the EPYC 7573X averages 17,070. That puts the Ryzen 3 210 slightly ahead by 251 points, a 1.5% difference, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test. This apparent contradiction is explained by the benchmark sets: the Ryzen 3 210 has 17 benchmark entries including PassMark tests, while the EPYC 7573X only lists the six Cinebench results. The Ryzen's PassMark scores — such as 152,017 in data compression and 37,933 in integer math — boost its average substantially.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this divergence. The Ryzen 3 210's closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 (average score 17,333, deltaPct -0.1), AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17,278, +0.2), Intel Core 7 150U (17,395, -0.4), and Intel Core i5-12450H (17,239, +0.5). The EPYC 7573X's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-11400 (17,067, 0.0), Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,074, 0.0), AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (17,035, +0.2), and AMD EPYC 7H12 (17,120, -0.3). The EPYC 7573X sits in a cluster of far less powerful consumer chips by average score, which indicates its average is dragged down by the absence of PassMark data — the Cinebench scores alone would place it far higher.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The wins are in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5,948 vs 1,128), R15 single-core (839 vs 159), R20 multi-core (24,787 vs 4,703), R20 single-core (3,499 vs 664), R23 multi-core (59,017 vs 11,198), and R23 single-core (8,331 vs 1,581). The Ryzen 3 210 has zero wins.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The deltaPct is consistently -81 for every head-to-head test, meaning the Ryzen 3 210 trails by 81% in each. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7573X delivers 59,017 points versus the Ryzen's 11,198 — the EPYC is roughly 5.3 times faster.

Q: Do the two processors have similar average benchmark scores?

A: Yes, the average benchmark scores are close. The Ryzen 3 210 averages 17,321, and the EPYC 7573X averages 17,070. Both sit at the 71st percentile versus all CPUs. However, the Ryzen 3 210 has 17 benchmark entries including PassMark tests, while the EPYC 7573X only has the six Cinebench results listed.

Q: What is the EPYC 7573X's nearest rival in the database?

A: The EPYC 7573X's nearest rivals by average score are the Intel Core i5-11400 (17,067, deltaPct 0.0), Intel Core Ultra 7 164U (17,074, 0.0), AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (17,035, +0.2), and AMD EPYC 7H12 (17,120, -0.3). The Ryzen 3 210's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 (17,333, -0.1) and Intel Core i5-12450H (17,239, +0.5).

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 7573X's 3.60 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 7573X wins every single-core benchmark, scoring 8,331 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the Ryzen's 1,581.

Q: Are both processors currently in production?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 3 210 and the AMD EPYC 7573X have a production status of "Active" in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Hawk Point, fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 20,900 million transistors on a die size of 137 mm². The AMD EPYC 7573X uses Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan-X, on a 7 nm process also at TSMC. It packs 33,200 million transistors across eight separate dies, each measuring 81 mm².

Cache structures differ substantially. The Ryzen 3 210 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7573X also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 cache is 96 times larger than the Ryzen's, a defining feature of the Milan-X generation. Neither processor has a separate vCache3d field listed.

Memory support reflects their different market positions. The Ryzen 3 210 supports DDR5 memory over a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC 7573X uses DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and full ECC support. PCIe capabilities also diverge: the Ryzen 3 210 offers Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 7573X provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The Ryzen 3 210 includes integrated Radeon 740M graphics, while the EPYC 7573X has no integrated graphics listed. The Ryzen 3 210 targets the mobile market segment, while the EPYC 7573X is a server/workstation part. The EPYC 7573X belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, whereas the Ryzen 3 210 has no series listed.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ by a factor of eight. The Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads; the EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are close — the Ryzen 3 210 runs at 3.00 GHz and the EPYC 7573X at 2.80 GHz — but boost clocks diverge, with the Ryzen reaching 4.70 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.60 GHz.

Thermal design power is dramatically different: the Ryzen 3 210 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the EPYC 7573X has a TDP of 280 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen 3 210 uses AMD Socket FP7, and the EPYC 7573X uses AMD Socket SP3. The Ryzen 3 210's release date is 2025-01-05, while the EPYC 7573X launched on 2022-03-21.

The EPYC 7573X has a launch MSRP of $5590, which can be stated once as its launch price. The Ryzen 3 210 has no launch MSRP listed. Part numbers differ: the Ryzen 3 210 is 100-000001612, and the EPYC 7573X is 100-000000506​WOF100-000000506​. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7573X wins decisively in every multi-core and single-core rendering workload represented by the Cinebench suite. Its 32 cores and 64 threads deliver 59,017 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, making it the clear choice for heavily threaded server workloads, virtualization, and scientific computing that scales across many cores. The 768 MB of shared L3 cache provides a massive data footprint for workloads that benefit from large working sets residing on-chip.

The Ryzen 3 210 wins in the broader average benchmark comparison, with a 17,321 average score versus the EPYC's 17,070. That advantage comes from its PassMark results: 152,017 in data compression, 37,933 in integer math, 23,649 in floating-point math, and 13,585 in multithreaded tests. These scores suggest the Ryzen 3 210 has strong per-core efficiency and excels in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded tasks where its 4.70 GHz boost clock can shine. Its 28-watt TDP makes it suitable for mobile or low-power environments, and the integrated Radeon 740M graphics add functionality the EPYC lacks.

The Ryzen 3 210 also wins on architectural recency, using Zen 4 on a 4 nm node versus the EPYC's Zen 3 on a 7 nm node. That newer process contributes to higher clock speeds and better power efficiency per core. For single-threaded responsiveness in everyday applications, the Ryzen 3 210's higher boost clock provides an advantage that the Cinebench single-core numbers contradict — but the PassMark single-thread score of 3,724 indicates solid per-core performance.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for users who prioritize raw multi-core throughput: the AMD EPYC 7573X is the only option. It delivers a 5.3x advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core and wins all six head-to-head benchmarks with a uniform -81 deltaPct against the Ryzen 3 210. Server administrators and workstation users running parallel workloads will find the EPYC's 32 cores, 64 threads, and 768 MB L3 cache essential. Its eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further cement its position for enterprise deployments.

However, the Ryzen 3 210 is not without merit in its own context. It holds a slight edge in average benchmark score (17,321 vs 17,070), benefits from a newer Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process, and offers integrated Radeon 740M graphics. Its 28-watt TDP makes it viable for thin-and-light mobile devices where the EPYC's 280-watt TDP is physically impossible. The Ryzen 3 210's 89.6 GB/s dual-channel DDR5 memory bandwidth and 14 PCIe lanes suit mainstream mobile workloads.

For single-threaded tasks, the Ryzen's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz suggests better responsiveness in bursty workloads, though the Cinebench R23 single-core score of 1,581 versus the EPYC's 8,331 indicates the EPYC's per-core IPC advantage under sustained load. The EPYC 7573X also carries a launch MSRP of $5590, reflecting its server-grade positioning.

The verdict depends entirely on the workload. If the task scales across many cores and demands large cache capacity, the EPYC 7573X is the definitive choice. If power efficiency, integrated graphics, and a modern mobile platform matter more, the Ryzen 3 210 is the appropriate pick. There is no scenario in the data where the Ryzen 3 210 outperforms the EPYC 7573X in a direct benchmark comparison, but the two serve fundamentally different markets, and the Ryzen's average score advantage shows it holds its own in the broader benchmark landscape.