CPU Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 40 and AMD EPYC 75F3 occupy completely different segments of the processor market, yet benchmark aggregation places them within 0.1% of each other in average score. The Ryzen 5 40, a 4-core mobile part, and the EPYC 75F3, a 32-core server processor, both land at the 70th percentile among all CPUs. The EPYC 75F3 wins all four head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with margins ranging from 78.8% to 91.2%. This is a case where the aggregate score masks the nature of the performance gap, as the workloads that favor the server chip are precisely those where core count dominates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 75F3 dominates every shared benchmark. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 54,829 against the Ryzen’s 4,841, a delta of -91.2% from the Ryzen’s perspective. That means the EPYC delivers more than 11 times the multi-threaded rendering performance. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test tells a similar story: 5,526 for the EPYC versus 790 for the Ryzen, a -85.7% delta. These are not close contests; the server processor’s 32 cores and 64 threads overwhelm the mobile chip’s 4 cores and 8 threads in any workload that scales with core count.

Single-core results are less lopsided but still favor the EPYC decisively. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 7,740 against 1,150 for the Ryzen, a -85.1% delta. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows 780 for the EPYC versus 165.5 for the Ryzen, a -78.8% delta. Notably, the EPYC’s base clock of 2.95 GHz is only slightly higher than the Ryzen’s 2.80 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.00 GHz is actually lower than the Ryzen’s 4.30 GHz. Despite the Ryzen’s higher boost frequency, the EPYC’s Zen 3 architecture delivers substantially better single-threaded performance. The data suggests that architectural efficiency, not raw clock speed, drives this gap.

The head-to-head table shows zero wins for the Ryzen 5 40 and four wins for the EPYC 75F3. No benchmark in the shared set favors the mobile chip. However, the Ryzen 5 40 has a broader benchmark suite in its own data, including PassMark tests where it scores 141,533 in data compression and 6,646 in data encryption. These results are not directly comparable to the EPYC’s Cinebench scores, but they indicate the Ryzen is not a weakling in all workloads, it simply loses every test that both processors took.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different process nodes and microarchitectures. The Ryzen 5 40 uses Zen 2 architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, while the EPYC 75F3 uses Zen 3 on a 7 nm TSMC process. The Ryzen’s die size is 100 mm², whereas the EPYC uses an 8-chiplet design totaling 8x 81 mm². The EPYC packs 33,200 million transistors across its chiplets; the Ryzen’s transistor count is not listed. Despite the EPYC’s older process node, its larger physical footprint and massive transistor budget enable far higher core counts.

Cache hierarchies differ dramatically. Both have 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is where the gap widens: the Ryzen has 4 MB shared L3, while the EPYC has 256 MB shared L3. That 64x difference in L3 capacity directly supports the EPYC’s server workloads, where large working sets benefit from on-die data. The Ryzen’s smaller cache is appropriate for its mobile segment, but it cannot match the EPYC’s ability to keep massive datasets close to the cores.

Memory support is another fundamental split. The Ryzen uses LPDDR5 with dual-channel memory and 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Ryzen does not. PCIe connectivity is equally divergent: the Ryzen provides Gen 3 with 4 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC’s 32x lane count and newer PCIe generation serve server expansion needs, whereas the Ryzen’s minimal lane count suits a compact mobile design. The Ryzen integrates a Radeon 610M GPU; the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: choose the EPYC 75F3 for any workload that appears in the shared benchmark set. It wins every Cinebench test by at least 78.8%, and in multi-core tests it leads by over 90%. The EPYC’s 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, eight-channel memory, and ECC support make it the only viable option for server or workstation tasks where rendering, compilation, or data processing scales with core count and memory bandwidth. Its launch MSRP is $4860, which reflects its enterprise positioning.

The Ryzen 5 40 is not competitive in these shared tests, but its profile suggests a different role. It is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, integrated Radeon 610M graphics, and LPDDR5 memory support. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for light productivity, and its PassMark scores, such as 31,598 in integer math and 15,194 in floating point math, show it can handle basic compute tasks. However, the data provides no scenario where the Ryzen outperforms the EPYC in a directly comparable benchmark. For users who need a low-power mobile chip, the Ryzen is the only choice; for anyone needing raw throughput, the EPYC dominates.

The aggregate benchmark scores are nearly identical, 15,882 for the Ryzen and 15,859 for the EPYC, but this is misleading. The Ryzen’s average includes PassMark tests that the EPYC did not take, and the EPYC’s average includes Cinebench R20 scores that the Ryzen lacks. When the same test is run on both, the EPYC wins by margins that are not remotely close. The percentile rank of 70 for both processors reflects their relative standing in their respective markets, not equivalence in performance.

Specification Differences

• Cores: Ryzen 5 40 has 4; EPYC 75F3 has 32.
• Threads: Ryzen has 8; EPYC has 64.
• Base Clock: Ryzen 2.80 GHz; EPYC 2.95 GHz.
• Boost Clock: Ryzen 4.30 GHz; EPYC 4.00 GHz.
• TDP: Ryzen 15 W; EPYC 280 W.
• Socket: Ryzen AMD Socket FT6; EPYC AMD Socket SP3.
• Architecture: Ryzen Zen 2; EPYC Zen 3.
• Process Node: Ryzen 6 nm; EPYC 7 nm.
• Transistors: Ryzen not listed; EPYC 33,200 million.
• Die Size: Ryzen 100 mm²; EPYC 8x 81 mm².
• L3 Cache: Ryzen 4 MB shared; EPYC 256 MB shared.
• Memory Support: Ryzen LPDDR5; EPYC DDR4.
• Memory Bus: Ryzen Dual-channel; EPYC Eight-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: Ryzen 88.0 GB/s; EPYC 204.8 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: Ryzen false; EPYC true.
• PCIe: Ryzen Gen 3, 4 lanes; EPYC Gen 4, 128 lanes.
• Integrated Graphics: Ryzen Radeon 610M; EPYC none.
• Market Segment: Ryzen Mobile; EPYC Server/Workstation.
• Release Date: Ryzen 2025-09-30; EPYC 2021-03-14.
• Launch MSRP: Ryzen not listed; EPYC $4860.
• Part Number: Ryzen unknown; EPYC 100-000000313100-100000313WOF.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 40 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

A: The Ryzen 5 40 has 4 MB shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 75F3 has 256 MB shared L3 cache, a 64x difference.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 75F3 supports ECC memory; the Ryzen 5 40 does not.

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 75F3 scores 54,829, while the Ryzen 5 40 scores 4,841, giving the EPYC a 91.2% advantage in that test.

Q: Which processor has higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 has a 4.30 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the EPYC 75F3’s 4.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Ryzen 5 40 supports LPDDR5 with dual-channel memory, while the EPYC 75F3 supports DDR4 with eight-channel memory.