AMD EPYC 7573X vs AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7573X and AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS are processors from opposite ends of the computing spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects a total mismatch in their intended workloads. The EPYC 7573X is a 32-core server behemoth, while the Ryzen 5 7235HS is a 4-core mobile part. Across every single benchmark recorded, the EPYC 7573X wins decisively, with performance margins that are nearly identical in every test, hovering around 466-467% faster than the Ryzen chip. This data shows a clear, uncompromising victory for the server processor, but the reasons behind the win and the use cases for each are entirely distinct.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data from the head-to-head comparison is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7573X outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS in all six Cinebench tests. The smallest winning margin is a 466.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the EPYC scores 5948 against the Ryzen's 1050. The largest margin is a 467.1% lead in Cinebench R20 singlecore, with scores of 3499 versus 617. This consistency is remarkable; the performance gap is essentially uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

Looking at the multi-core results, the EPYC's advantage is staggering. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC 7573X scores 59017, while the Ryzen 5 7235HS manages only 10418. This represents a 466.5% delta, which is directly attributable to the EPYC's 32 cores and 64 threads versus the Ryzen's 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC's 59017 score places it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen's 10418 places it in the 70th percentile, despite the massive performance gap, because the Ryzen chip's average benchmark score of 16902 is buoyed by other tests.

Even in single-core performance, where the Ryzen's higher 4.20 GHz boost clock should help, the EPYC wins. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the EPYC scores 8331 versus the Ryzen's 1470, a 466.7% lead. The EPYC's lower 3.60 GHz boost clock is clearly offset by its larger cache and architecture advantages. The data shows a complete sweep: 6 wins for the EPYC 7573X and 0 wins for the Ryzen 5 7235HS. There is no single benchmark in this set where the mobile chip closes the gap.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures tailored for different markets. The EPYC 7573X is based on Zen 3 architecture with the "Milan-X" codename, while the Ryzen 5 7235HS uses Zen 3+ with the "Rembrandt-R" codename. The EPYC is built on a 7 nm process node from TSMC, whereas the Ryzen uses a more advanced 6 nm node from the same foundry. The EPYC's die size is listed as 8x 81 mm², indicating a chiplet design, while the Ryzen uses a monolithic 210 mm² die.

The cache configurations are drastically different. The EPYC 7573X features 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, but the defining feature is its massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. This is an enormous amount of cache designed to hold entire datasets for server workloads. The Ryzen 5 7235HS also has 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is only 8 MB. This 96x difference in L3 cache capacity is a primary driver of the EPYC's performance advantage in server applications.

Memory support also diverges completely. The EPYC 7573X supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Ryzen 5 7235HS supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The EPYC also offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen offers 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The EPYC's TDP is 280W, fitting its server role, while the Ryzen's is 45W, appropriate for mobile. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen includes a Radeon 660M iGPU. Both support ECC memory.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 8x core advantage is the primary reason for the EPYC's massive multi-threaded lead.

Q: Is the Ryzen 5 7235HS faster in any benchmark?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the EPYC 7573X wins 6 out of 6 Cinebench benchmarks. The Ryzen 5 7235HS records 0 wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size between the two?

A: The EPYC 7573X has a shared L3 cache of 768 MB, while the Ryzen 5 7235HS has a shared L3 cache of 8 MB. This is a 96x difference in favor of the EPYC.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7573X and the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS support ECC memory. However, they use different memory types: the EPYC uses DDR4 and the Ryzen uses DDR5.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7573X has an average benchmark score of 17070, while the Ryzen 5 7235HS has an average score of 16902. Despite the EPYC's huge win in Cinebench, the Ryzen's average score is close due to its performance in other test suites like PassMark.

Q: What are the boost clocks of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7573X has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The Ryzen has a higher boost clock, but the EPYC still wins in single-core Cinebench tests.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD EPYC 7573X is the superior processor in raw performance. It wins every benchmark in the comparison, with a performance advantage of roughly 466-467% across all Cinebench tests. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and 768 MB of L3 cache make it an absolute powerhouse for multi-threaded server and workstation workloads. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 17070 puts it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs, and it trades blows with rivals like the Intel Core i5-11400 (deltaPct 0) and the AMD EPYC 7H12 (deltaPct -0.3).

The Ryzen 5 7235HS, despite losing all benchmarks, is not a poor processor in its own context. Its average benchmark score of 16902 places it in the 70th percentile, just one point below the EPYC. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7702 (deltaPct -0.2) and the Intel Core i3-12100E (deltaPct 0.3), showing it is competitive in its mobile segment. The Ryzen chip's 45W TDP and integrated Radeon 660M graphics make it suitable for laptops, but it cannot compete with the EPYC's server-grade capabilities. The choice is not about which is better overall, but which is appropriate for the task.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD EPYC 7573X and the AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS:

• Cores: 32 (EPYC) vs 4 (Ryzen)
• Threads: 64 vs 8
• Base Clock: 2.80 GHz vs 3.20 GHz
• Boost Clock: 3.60 GHz vs 4.20 GHz
• TDP: 280W vs 45W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 vs AMD Socket FP7
• Architecture: Zen 3 vs Zen 3+
• Codename: Milan-X vs Rembrandt-R
• Process Node: 7 nm vs 6 nm
• Die Size: 8x 81 mm² vs 210 mm²
• L3 Cache: 768 MB (shared) vs 8 MB (shared)
• Memory Support: DDR4 vs DDR5
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel vs Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s vs 76.8 GB/s
• PCIe Lanes: 128 (Gen 4) vs 20 (Gen 4)
• Integrated Graphics: None vs Radeon 660M
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation vs Mobile
• Launch MSRP: $5590 (EPYC only; Ryzen has no listed MSRP)

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7573X wins in all measured Cinebench scenarios, making it the clear choice for any workload that demands maximum compute throughput. Its 466.5% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore (59017 vs 10418) and 466.7% lead in singlecore (8331 vs 1470) show it excels in both threaded and single-threaded tasks. The 768 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it ideal for large-scale virtualization, database processing, and heavy scientific computing where data residency is critical. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes support extensive I/O configurations for enterprise storage and networking.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has its own domain. Its 45W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, and the integrated Radeon 660M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its support for DDR5 memory and 6 nm process node represent modern mobile technology. The Ryzen's higher 4.20 GHz boost clock and lower power draw make it appropriate for everyday productivity, media consumption, and light content creation on battery power. The data shows it performs competitively against other mobile and entry-level desktop chips, with its average score of 16902 being nearly identical to the EPYC's 17070, but it simply cannot match the EPYC's raw compute power. The EPYC is for servers; the Ryzen is for portable systems.