AMD EPYC 75F3 vs AMD Ryzen 3 7440U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusually lopsided comparison. Across every shared Cinebench test, the AMD EPYC 75F3 dominates the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U by a substantial margin. The EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with no victories recorded for the Ryzen 3 7440U.

The most extreme gap appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the EPYC 75F3 scores 5,526 against the Ryzen 3 7440U's 1,112 — a 396.9% advantage. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in relative terms: 780 versus 156, a 400% delta. This pattern repeats across every rendering workload. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 75F3 posts 23,028 versus 4,637, a 396.6% lead. The R20 single-core result shows 3,250 against 654, a 396.9% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core yields 54,829 for the EPYC and 11,042 for the Ryzen, a 396.5% gap, while R23 single-core lands at 7,740 versus 1,558, a 396.8% margin.

These deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering near 397-400% across all six tests. The consistency suggests the performance difference scales almost uniformly regardless of workload intensity — whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the EPYC 75F3 maintains roughly a 4x advantage in these Cinebench metrics. That uniformity is notable because it implies the gap derives from fundamental architectural throughput rather than any specific optimization in one test category.

The Ryzen 3 7440U does have additional benchmark data beyond Cinebench — Geekbench scores of 5,806 multi-core and 2,003 single-core, plus PassMark results across various specialized workloads. However, the EPYC 75F3 has no corresponding entries in those tests within this dataset, so direct comparison is impossible for those metrics. The head-to-head table only includes the six Cinebench tests, and the EPYC 75F3 wins all six.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the two processors sit surprisingly close in the aggregate. The EPYC 75F3 averages 15,859 across its benchmark suite, while the Ryzen 3 7440U averages 15,682. That difference is just 1.1% in the EPYC's favor. This narrow aggregate gap contrasts sharply with the massive Cinebench deltas, which underscores how different benchmark suites can paint divergent pictures — the Ryzen 3 7440U's PassMark results, including a 153,689 score in data compression and 36,758 in integer math, likely pull its average up considerably.

The percentile rankings confirm this nuance. The EPYC 75F3 sits at the 70th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 3 7440U sits at the 69th percentile. Both processors rank within one percentile point of each other globally, despite their dramatic head-to-head differences in Cinebench. The nearest rivals for each processor reinforce this: the EPYC 75F3's closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 5 40, averages 15,882 (0.1% higher), while the Ryzen 3 7440U's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-11400H, averages 15,749 (0.4% higher). Notably, each processor's rival list includes the other — the EPYC 75F3 appears as a rival of the Ryzen 3 7440U with a 1.1% higher average score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U records zero wins in the shared benchmark set.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 75F3 scores 54,829 versus the Ryzen 3 7440U's 11,042, a 396.5% advantage. The R20 multi-core gap is 396.6%, and the R15 multi-core gap is 396.9%.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 7440U win any benchmark at all?

A: Within the head-to-head benchmark table, no. However, the Ryzen 3 7440U has additional benchmarks (Geekbench and PassMark) that the EPYC 75F3 lacks, so no comparison exists for those tests.

Q: How do their global percentile rankings compare?

A: The EPYC 75F3 ranks at the 70th percentile of all CPUs, while the Ryzen 3 7440U ranks at the 69th percentile — a difference of just one percentile point.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores relative to each other?

A: The EPYC 75F3 averages 15,859, and the Ryzen 3 7440U averages 15,682. The EPYC 75F3 is 1.1% higher, and the Ryzen 3 7440U lists the EPYC 75F3 as a nearest rival with that exact delta.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 3 7440U boosts to 4.70 GHz, while the EPYC 75F3 boosts to 4.00 GHz. Despite the higher boost clock, the Ryzen 3 7440U trails significantly in all shared Cinebench tests.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins decisively in every workload captured by the shared Cinebench tests. This includes both single-core and multi-core rendering scenarios across three Cinebench versions. The EPYC 75F3's multi-core scores are its strongest suit — the R23 multi-core result of 54,829 demonstrates massive parallel throughput capability. Its single-core results, while relatively less dominant versus its own multi-core performance, still beat the Ryzen 3 7440U by roughly 4x in every case.

The AMD Ryzen 3 7440U's wins appear outside the head-to-head table. Its PassMark results show specific strengths: data compression at 153,689, integer math at 36,758, random string sorting at 21,479, and floating point math at 20,291. The single-thread PassMark score of 2,614 and the Geekbench single-core score of 2,003 represent its best relative showings, though without corresponding EPYC 75F3 data, no direct comparison exists. The Ryzen 3 7440U's lower power envelope (28W TDP versus 280W TDP) also suggests efficiency advantages, though wattage figures cannot be directly compared for performance-per-watt without additional data.

For workloads that stress memory bandwidth, the EPYC 75F3 offers eight-channel DDR4 support with 204.8 GB/s, while the Ryzen 3 7440U uses dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s. The EPYC's bandwidth advantage is substantial — more than double — which likely contributes to its multi-core dominance. However, the Ryzen 3 7440U's DDR5 support represents a newer memory standard, which may offer latency or efficiency benefits that the available benchmarks do not capture.

The Ryzen 3 7440U also includes integrated Radeon 740M graphics, a feature entirely absent from the EPYC 75F3. This makes the Ryzen 3 7440U viable for systems without discrete GPUs, whereas the EPYC 75F3 requires external graphics hardware. For compact or power-constrained builds, this integrated graphics capability is a functional advantage regardless of raw CPU performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has 4 cores and 8 threads — an 8x difference in core count and thread count. Base clocks are close: 2.95 GHz for the EPYC versus 3.00 GHz for the Ryzen. Boost clocks differ more significantly, with the Ryzen 3 7440U boosting to 4.70 GHz against the EPYC's 4.00 GHz.

Thermal design power presents a stark contrast. The EPYC 75F3 has a 280W TDP, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has a 28W TDP — a 10x difference. Socket types also diverge completely: the EPYC 75F3 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Ryzen 3 7440U uses AMD Socket FP7.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The EPYC 75F3 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 3 7440U supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, a shared feature. PCIe lanes differ dramatically: the EPYC 75F3 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 3 7440U provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics exist only on the Ryzen 3 7440U, which includes Radeon 740M. The EPYC 75F3 has no integrated graphics. Market segments also differ: the EPYC 75F3 targets server/workstation use, while the Ryzen 3 7440U targets mobile applications. The EPYC 75F3 has a launch MSRP of $4860, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 75F3 is built on Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, using a 7nm process node from TSMC. The Ryzen 3 7440U uses Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix2 codename, on a 4nm process node, also from TSMC. The process node difference — 7nm versus 4nm — represents a significant generational advancement for the Ryzen 3 7440U.

Transistor counts differ considerably. The EPYC 75F3 contains 33,200 million transistors spread across 8 dies of 81 mm² each. The Ryzen 3 7440U contains 20,900 million transistors on a single 137 mm² die. The EPYC's multi-die approach enables its massive core count, while the Ryzen 3 7440U's monolithic design on a smaller node achieves higher density per area.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. L2 cache differs: the EPYC 75F3 has 512 KB per core, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has 1 MB per core — double the per-core L2. L3 cache shows the biggest gap: the EPYC 75F3 has 256 MB shared L3, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has 8 MB shared L3. The EPYC's 32x larger L3 cache is a defining architectural feature for server workloads.

Release dates place these chips in different eras. The EPYC 75F3 was released on 2021-03-14, while the Ryzen 3 7440U was released on 2023-05-02 — over two years later. Both remain in active production status. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 75F3's part number is 100-000000313100-100000313WOF, while the Ryzen 3 7440U has part numbers 100-000001068(FP7r2) and 100-000001071(FP7).

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. For workloads that demand maximum multi-core rendering performance, the AMD EPYC 75F3 is the definitive choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 54,829 is nearly five times the Ryzen 3 7440U's 11,042. The EPYC's 32 cores, 256 MB L3 cache, and eight-channel memory bandwidth all align with server and workstation workloads that scale with parallel resources. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further suit high-throughput computing environments with multiple accelerators or storage devices.

For mobile or power-constrained systems, the AMD Ryzen 3 7440U presents a compelling alternative despite its lower raw performance. Its 28W TDP is one-tenth the EPYC's 280W, making it suitable for laptops and compact devices. The integrated Radeon 740M graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The newer Zen 4 architecture on 4nm process technology provides per-core efficiency advantages, evidenced by its 1 MB per-core L2 cache and higher 4.70 GHz boost clock.

The aggregate benchmark scores suggest these processors occupy similar overall performance tiers — 70th versus 69th percentile — which may surprise given their Cinebench disparity. This reflects the Ryzen 3 7440U's strong PassMark results in specialized workloads like data compression (153,689) and integer math (36,758), which likely appeal to different application profiles. The EPYC 75F3's average score of 15,859 is only 1.1% above the Ryzen 3 7440U's 15,682.

Neither processor wins universally. The EPYC 75F3 wins every shared benchmark but requires server infrastructure. The Ryzen 3 7440U wins no head-to-head tests but offers integrated graphics, a smaller process node, and dramatically lower power consumption. The selection hinges on whether the workload prioritizes absolute computational throughput or system-level flexibility. Data centers running dense virtualization, scientific computing, or large-scale rendering should choose the EPYC 75F3. Mobile professionals needing capable processing with integrated graphics and battery-friendly power draw should choose the Ryzen 3 7440U. The benchmark data provides no scenario where both requirements are simultaneously satisfied by a single processor.