AMD EPYC 75F3 vs AMD Ryzen 5 4600H Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 4600H and the AMD EPYC 75F3 make for one of the stranger comparisons in the database, because the summary metrics suggest parity while the head-to-head data shows a blowout. Both chips sit at the 70th percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores sit within a few hundred points of each other (16341 for the Ryzen against 15859 for the EPYC). Yet in every direct benchmark on record, the EPYC 75F3 wins by margins exceeding 74 percent. The explanation lies in how those averages are assembled, and it says something important about what summary scores can hide.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The EPYC 75F3 wins all four head-to-head tests. Its smallest margin is 74.2 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core (5526 versus 1425) and its largest is 85.3 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core (54829 versus 8072).

Q: How can the average scores be so close if the head-to-head is so lopsided?

A: The averages are computed over different test suites. The Ryzen 5 4600H has results across 3DMark, Geekbench, and PassMark suites that the EPYC has no recorded entries for, so the two average figures are not directly comparable. The only shared tests are the four Cinebench entries, and those all go to the EPYC decisively.

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 75F3 leads here as well. Cinebench R15 single-core is 780 versus 176, and Cinebench R23 single-core is 7740 versus 1142.5, a gap of roughly 85 percent in both cases. The interesting wrinkle is that both chips share an identical 4.00 boost clock, so the difference traces back to architecture rather than raw frequency.

Q: Do they use the same process technology?

A: Yes. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. They differ in architecture generation (Zen 2 versus Zen 3), transistor count (9,800 million versus 33,200 million), and die construction (a single 156 mm² die versus a chiplet layout of 8 dies at 81 mm² each).

Q: How power-hungry is each chip?

A: The Ryzen 5 4600H is a 45 W mobile part, while the EPYC 75F3 is a 280 W server processor. That is more than six times the thermal envelope in exchange for more than five times the core count.

Q: Which rivals sit closest to each in the database?

A: The Ryzen's nearest rivals by average score include the Intel Core i7-1260U (within 0.1 percent), the AMD EPYC 7543P (0.3 percent lower), the Intel Core i5-10600KF (0.7 percent lower), and the Intel Core i7-10850H (0.8 percent lower). The EPYC 75F3 clusters near the AMD Ryzen 5 40, AMD EPYC 9354P, Intel Core Ultra 5 134U, and AMD EPYC 9334, all within half a percent.

The Verdict

The data describes two processors built for entirely different jobs. The EPYC 75F3 is a Socket SP3 server chip with 32 cores, 64 threads, eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, ECC support, and 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4. Nothing in its profile suggests a desktop or laptop role, and its launch MSRP of $4860 confirms a datacenter positioning. The Ryzen 5 4600H is a Socket FP6 mobile processor with 6 cores, 12 threads, dual-channel DDR4 at 51.2 GB/s, integrated Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics, and no ECC support.

Anyone choosing between them is almost certainly not choosing between equals. If sustained multi-threaded throughput on shared Cinebench workloads is the criterion, the EPYC is the only defensible pick: it never loses a head-to-head test. If the requirement is a mobile platform with integrated graphics and a 45 W envelope, the EPYC is not even a candidate, since it has no integrated graphics and demands a server infrastructure.

The one genuine curiosity is the percentile data: both sit at the 70th percentile versus all CPUs. Averaged across their respective recorded test suites, a mobile chip and a 32-core server chip land in the same relative position. That is less a statement about the chips than a reminder that percentile and average-score fields blend incompatible test sets and should be read with the head-to-head data alongside them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only four tests appear in both records, and the pattern is unambiguous.

Cinebench R15 multi-core: the EPYC 75F3 scores 5526 against 1425 for the Ryzen 5 4600H, a 74.2 percent gap. This is the Ryzen's closest result, and even here it delivers barely a quarter of the EPYC's throughput. With 32 cores against 6, the surprise is arguably that the gap is not wider, which points to strong per-thread efficiency in the mobile part's sustained behavior at its 3.00 base clock.

Cinebench R15 single-core: 780 versus 176, a 77.4 percent margin for the EPYC. This is the most architecturally interesting result of the set. Both chips boost to 4.00, yet the Zen 3-based Milan core delivers more than four times the score of the Zen 2-based Renoir core in this test. The generational jump in per-clock throughput, visible even at identical peak frequencies, is the whole story here.

Cinebench R23 multi-core: 54829 versus 8072, an 85.3 percent gap. The core-count advantage compounds with the per-core advantage here, and the Ryzen's 12 threads simply cannot cover the ground.

Cinebench R23 single-core: 7740 versus 1142.5, an 85.2 percent gap, nearly identical to the multi-core margin. That symmetry is telling. It implies the EPYC's dominance is not primarily a threading artifact; even on a single thread, it outperforms the Ryzen by almost the same ratio as it does across all threads. If the R23 single-core gap were smaller than the multi-core gap, one could attribute the EPYC's win mainly to its 64 threads. It is not, so per-core architectural strength carries at least as much weight as core count in these results.

The Ryzen's own benchmark record is still respectable in context: its 3DMark thread-scaling scores climb from 675 single-thread to 4387 at 16 threads, and its PassMark multithread score of 14228 sits comfortably alongside the Intel Core i7-10850H in its rival cluster. It simply never gets within striking distance of the EPYC on shared ground.

Specification Differences

The two chips share a manufacturer, a 7 nm TSMC process, DDR4 memory support, 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, an identical 4.00 boost clock, a locked multiplier, and active production status. Everything else of consequence differs.

Cores and threads: 6/12 on the Ryzen, 32/64 on the EPYC. Base clock is nearly identical, 3.00 versus 2.95. TDP diverges sharply, 45 W against 280 W. The sockets are incompatible by design, FP6 mobile versus SP3 server. Cache separates them most dramatically at L3: 8 MB shared on the Ryzen versus 256 MB shared on the EPYC, a thirty-two-fold difference that directly shapes throughput on cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory subsystems differ in class, not just degree: dual-channel at 51.2 GB/s versus eight-channel at 204.8 GB/s, with ECC supported only on the EPYC. PCIe is Gen 3 on the Ryzen against Gen 4 with 128 CPU lanes on the EPYC. The Ryzen includes Radeon RX Vega 6 integrated graphics; the EPYC has none. The EPYC carries a recorded launch MSRP of $4860, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Ryzen. Transistor counts and die construction also diverge: 9,800 million transistors on a single 156 mm² die versus 33,200 million across 8 dies of 81 mm² each. Release dates differ too, with the EPYC arriving roughly fourteen months after the Ryzen.

Architecture Differences

Both are AMD designs on TSMC 7 nm silicon, but they represent different generations of the Zen family. The Ryzen 5 4600H is Zen 2, codename Renoir, a monolithic mobile design where the CPU and the Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics share one 156 mm² die. The EPYC 75F3 is Zen 3, codename Milan, a chiplet-based server design built from eight 81 mm² dies.

The generation gap matters because the shared benchmarks hold frequency constant at a 4.00 boost for both chips, and yet per-core output differs enormously. Zen 3's reworked core, combined with the EPYC's 256 MB of shared L3, shows up in single-thread results that outpace the Zen 2 core by more than four to one in Cinebench. The chiplet approach also explains the transistor count: 33,200 million transistors, more than three times the Ryzen's 9,800 million, spread across a package engineered for eight-channel memory and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes rather than for mobility.

The "F" positioning of the EPYC, implied by its high per-core clocks paired with a large L3 pool, aligns with the recorded data: it behaves like a frequency-focused server part rather than a maximum-density one.

Where Each One Wins

The split could not be cleaner. The EPYC 75F3 wins every shared benchmark, by 74.2 to 85.3 percent, and its profile points it at throughput-heavy server and workstation roles: rendering (its R23 multi-core score of 54829 is the headline number), virtualization and heavily threaded batch work enabled by 64 threads, and memory-bandwidth-bound applications that can exploit 204.8 GB/s and ECC integrity.

The Ryzen 5 4600H wins nothing head-to-head, but its wins are situational rather than benchmark-based. It is the only one of the two that fits a notebook: 45 W, integrated Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics, dual-channel DDR4, and a Socket FP6 platform. Its rival cluster (the Core i7-10850H, the Core i7-1260U, the i5-10600KF, and notably the EPYC 7543P, all within a percent of its average score) shows it competing credibly in its own class. For light-threaded everyday work and gaming on integrated graphics, it is the pick; for anything the two chips can both run, the recorded data leaves no ambiguity at all.