AMD EPYC 7663 vs AMD EPYC 7C13 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a fascinating split between these two Milan-generation EPYC processors. The AMD EPYC 7663 claims victory in 10 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the AMD EPYC 7C13 takes 7 wins. However, the margins tell a more nuanced story than the raw win count suggests.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 7663 delivers a consistent 7% advantage across every single test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 7032 against the 7C13's 6539. The R20 multicore result shows 29304 versus 27246, and the R23 multicore test lands at 69773 against 64873. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 single-core shows 992 versus 923, R20 single-core shows 4137 versus 3846, and R23 single-core shows 9850 versus 9158. This uniformity across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental efficiency advantage for the 7663 in rendering workloads.

The Passmark suite reveals a completely different competitive landscape. The 7C13 dominates data compression with a score of 1562251, beating the 7663's 1447020 by 8%. Extended instructions show an even larger gap: 85034 versus 73719, a 15.3% lead for the 7C13. Floating-point math favors the 7C13 at 266846 versus 251535 (6.1% ahead), while integer math shows 492554 against 468096, a 5.2% edge. Data encryption is closer, with the 7C13 at 114769 versus 111725, a 2.7% advantage.

The 7663 strikes back decisively in several Passmark subtests. Physics performance is its most dramatic victory: 8020 versus 4904, a massive 38.9% lead. Random string sorting shows 184367 against 131361, putting the 7663 28.8% ahead. Find prime numbers results in 676 versus 539, a 20.3% advantage. The multithread benchmark also goes to the 7663 at 82087 versus 76322, a 7% edge.

The single-thread Passmark test is nearly a tie, with the 7C13 edging out 2618 to 2606, a razor-thin 0.5% margin. This near-parity in single-thread performance, combined with the 7663's consistent 7% lead in Cinebench single-core tests, suggests the two chips have similar per-core capabilities but different optimization profiles.

The average benchmark scores place the 7C13 at 167788, which is 3.6% higher than the 7663's 161973. The 7C13 sits 2.3% below the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX in the nearest rivals list, while the 7663 trails that same chip by 5.7%. Both processors rank in the 99th percentile among all CPUs, confirming their elite status in the broader market.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7663 is the stronger all-around performer in this matchup. Its 10 wins against 7 losses, combined with the consistency of its Cinebench dominance, makes it the safer choice for most workloads. The 7% advantage across all six Cinebench tests is particularly compelling, as those benchmarks are widely used to gauge general-purpose compute capability.

However, the 7C13's 3.6% higher average benchmark score complicates the picture. That aggregate figure suggests that its wins, while fewer in number, carry substantial weight in specific domains. The 15.3% lead in extended instructions and 8% lead in data compression are not trivial margins.

For buyers optimizing for rendering, physics simulation, or string manipulation workloads, the 7663 is the data-backed choice. The 38.9% physics lead alone is enough to justify its selection for those use cases. For workloads heavy on data compression, encryption, or extended instruction sets, the 7C13's advantages are equally compelling.

The near-tie in single-thread performance (2618 versus 2606) means that lightly threaded applications will see little difference. The decision ultimately hinges on whether the workload leans toward the 7663's strengths in rendering and physics or the 7C13's strengths in data processing and math operations.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7663 claims its most decisive victories in physics simulation (38.9% ahead) and random string sorting (28.8% ahead). These are compute-intensive tasks that benefit from the 7663's architectural tuning. The find prime numbers result, showing a 20.3% advantage, further confirms its strength in integer-heavy algorithmic workloads. The Cinebench suite's uniform 7% lead across both single and multicore tests indicates that the 7663 is the better choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other creative production tasks.

The AMD EPYC 7C13 counters with its strongest showing in extended instructions, where it leads by 15.3%. This category encompasses advanced CPU instruction sets, making it relevant for scientific computing and specialized enterprise software. Data compression at 8% ahead makes the 7C13 the pick for database workloads, file servers, and backup systems. Floating-point math (6.1% ahead) and integer math (5.2% ahead) suggest an edge in financial modeling, engineering simulation, and general number-crunching. The 2.7% encryption advantage positions it well for security-focused applications.

The multithread benchmark goes to the 7663 at 82087 versus 76322, but the 7C13's higher average benchmark score indicates that its wins tend to be in areas with broader real-world impact. The 7663's single-thread Passmark score is actually lower than the 7C13's (2606 versus 2618), yet the 7663 wins all three Cinebench single-core tests. This discrepancy highlights how different benchmark suites can paint different pictures of the same hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7C13 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads.

Q: Does the EPYC 7663 always win in Cinebench tests?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7663 wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multicore variants) with a consistent 7% margin over the EPYC 7C13.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in Passmark physics, where the EPYC 7663 scores 8020 against the EPYC 7C13's 4904, giving the 7663 a 38.9% advantage.

Q: Which processor is better for data compression workloads?

A: The EPYC 7C13 is better for data compression, scoring 1562251 versus the 7663's 1447020, an 8% advantage.

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

A: In Passmark single-thread tests, the EPYC 7C13 leads by a razor-thin 0.5% (2618 versus 2606), but in Cinebench single-core tests, the EPYC 7663 leads by 7% across all three versions.

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

A: The EPYC 7C13 has an average benchmark score of 167788, which is 3.6% higher than the EPYC 7663's 161973.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 3 on the Milan codename, built on TSMC's 7 nm process node. The transistor count is identical at 33,200 million, and both use the same 8x 81 mm² die configuration. This means the architectural differences are not in the silicon design but in how the chips are configured.

The EPYC 7C13 packs 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 7663 offers 56 cores and 112 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the 7663 achieves higher boost clocks: 3.50 GHz versus the 7C13's 3.68 GHz for the 7C13. Wait, that's reversed – the 7C13 has the higher boost clock at 3.68 GHz, while the 7663 boosts to 3.50 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2000.00 MHz.

The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This shared L3 design is a hallmark of the Milan architecture, allowing all cores to access a large pool of fast memory. The 7C13's additional 8 cores may benefit from this shared cache in heavily multithreaded workloads, while the 7663's lower core count but higher boost clock may explain its single-thread advantages.

The TDP differs, with the 7C13 rated at 225 watts and the 7663 at 240 watts. This higher thermal envelope for the 7663, despite having fewer cores, suggests it may be operating at higher voltage or clock speeds under load. The socket is the same AMD Socket SP3 for both, ensuring platform compatibility.

Both processors support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only) for both chips.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most significant specification difference: the EPYC 7C13 offers 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 7663 provides 56 cores and 112 threads. This 8-core gap translates to 16 additional threads for the 7C13.

Boost clocks differ, with the 7C13 reaching 3.68 GHz and the 7663 topping out at 3.50 GHz. The base clock is identical at 2000.00 MHz for both processors.

TDP ratings show a 15-watt difference, with the 7663 consuming up to 240 watts versus the 7C13's 225 watts. This is notable given the 7C13 has more cores, suggesting the 7663 may have a different power delivery profile.

The release dates differ: the EPYC 7663 was released on 2021-03-14, while the EPYC 7C13 has no listed release date. The 7663 also has a launch MSRP of $6366, which can be stated once as its launch MSRP. The 7C13 has no launch MSRP listed.

Part numbers distinguish the two: the 7C13 is identified as 100-000000315, while the 7663 has part number 100-000000318100-100000318WOF. The 7663's part number includes both a standard and a WOF (without fan) designation.

All other specifications are identical: Zen 3 architecture, Milan codename, 7 nm process, TSMC foundry, 33,200 million transistors, 8x 81 mm² die size, DDR4 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, active production status, AMD Socket SP3, and locked multipliers.