AMD EPYC 7663 vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9375F and AMD EPYC 7663 are both high-end server processors occupying the 99th percentile of all CPUs, yet they achieve that standing through fundamentally different designs. The 9375F, a 32-core Zen 5 part, and the 7663, a 56-core Zen 3 part, sit nearly level in aggregate performance—the 9375F’s average benchmark score of 162497 is a mere 0.3% above the 7663’s 161973. That statistical tie, however, masks a dramatic divergence in workload-specific strengths. The data shows a clear split: the 9375F dominates single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks, while the 7663 counters in encryption, integer math, and sorting—areas where its higher core count and older architecture’s characteristics still hold sway.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern across the head-to-head results is the 9375F’s consistency in Cinebench. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests—both multi-core and single-core—the 9375F wins by exactly 16.7%. This uniformity suggests a per-core performance advantage that scales linearly, rather than a workload-specific quirk. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9375F scores 81402 against the 7663’s 69773; in single-core R23, it posts 11492 versus 9850. The same 16.7% delta appears in R15 multi-core (8205 vs 7032), R15 single-core (1158 vs 992), R20 multi-core (34188 vs 29304), and R20 single-core (4826 vs 4137). Notably, the 9375F achieves this despite having 24 fewer cores and 48 fewer threads than the 7663.

The Passmark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The 9375F wins 11 of the 14 Passmark tests, but the margins vary wildly. Its largest victory comes in passmark_find_prime_numbers, where it scores 1397 against 676—a 106.7% advantage that more than doubles the 7663’s output. The extended_instructions test shows a 74% lead (128296 vs 73719), while single-thread performance is 44.4% higher (3762 vs 2606). The 9375F also wins passmark_multithread (95768 vs 82087, +16.7%), physics (9019 vs 8020, +12.5%), floating_point_math (260392 vs 251535, +3.5%), and data_compression (1496149 vs 1447020, +3.4%).

The 7663’s three wins are concentrated, but decisive. Its biggest is data_encryption, where it scores 111725 versus the 9375F’s 73634—a 34.1% lead for the 7663. It also wins passmark_integer_math with 468096 against 387901, a 17.1% margin, and random_string_sorting at 184367 versus 161091, a 12.6% edge. These three wins suggest the 7663’s 56 cores can be marshalled effectively in specific parallel workloads that are less sensitive to per-core clock speed or memory bandwidth.

The overall win count is lopsided—14 wins for the 9375F, 3 for the 7663—but the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The 9375F’s aggregate advantage is just 0.3%, meaning the 7663’s three wins are large enough to offset the 9375F’s many smaller victories. In the nearest rival comparison, the 7663 shows a -0.3% deltaPct relative to the 9375F, while the 9375F shows +0.3% relative to the 7663—essentially a dead heat in overall performance, despite the divergent per-test outcomes.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice based on workload profile. The AMD EPYC 9375F is the pick for any environment where single-threaded responsiveness or per-core throughput dominates. Its 44.4% lead in Passmark single-thread, 16.7% lead across all Cinebench tests, and 106.7% lead in prime number finding make it the superior option for database queries, web serving, or any latency-sensitive transaction workload. The 9375F also holds a 74% advantage in extended instructions, indicating stronger SIMD or cryptographic instruction execution when those instructions are not the sole focus of the test.

The AMD EPYC 7663, conversely, is the choice for workloads that can parallelize across many cores and benefit from raw core count. Its 34.1% lead in data encryption and 17.1% lead in integer math show that software designed to scale across 112 threads can extract more total throughput from the older chip. The 12.6% advantage in random string sorting reinforces this—sorting algorithms that break data into many independent partitions will favor the 7663.

For a mixed general-purpose server, the 0.3% aggregate difference suggests either chip will perform nearly identically on average. However, the 9375F’s wins in multithreaded Cinebench and Passmark multithread—both by 16.7%—indicate it is not merely a single-core specialist. It outruns the 7663 even in heavily threaded render workloads despite 24 fewer cores. The 7663 should be reserved for deployments where its specific encryption and integer strengths align exactly with the application profile, or where the 240 TDP versus 320 TDP matters more than raw speed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct generations of AMD’s EPYC line. The 9375F uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with the codename Turin. Its transistor count is listed at 66,520 million, spread across 8 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The 7663 uses Zen 3 on a 7 nm process, also TSMC, with the codename Milan, containing 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies of 81 mm² each. The 9375F thus packs roughly twice the transistors into a slightly smaller per-die area, reflecting the denser process node.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads. Cache hierarchy also diverges: the 9375F offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, while the 7663 provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both share 256 MB of L3, but the 9375F’s larger per-core L1 and L2 likely contribute to its single-thread dominance. The 9375F’s base clock is 3.85 GHz with a boost of 4.80 GHz, versus the 7663’s 2000.00 MHz base and 3.50 GHz boost—the 9375F runs far faster at both ends.

Memory and I/O also separate the two. The 9375F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 7663 uses DDR4 with eight channels and 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe generation differs: the 9375F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, the 7663 Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The 9375F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the 7663 uses AMD Socket SP3. Both are active production parts, and neither has an unlocked multiplier nor integrated graphics. The 9375F’s launch MSRP is $5306; the 7663’s is $6366.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core performance advantage?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F leads by 44.4% in Passmark single-thread tests, scoring 3762 versus the 7663’s 2606, and by 16.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (11492 vs 9850).

Q: Does the 56-core AMD EPYC 7663 beat the 32-core 9375F in any multi-threaded benchmark?

A: Yes, the 7663 wins passmark_data_encryption with 111725 against 73634 (a 34.1% lead) and passmark_integer_math with 468096 versus 387901 (a 17.1% lead), both of which are multithreaded tests.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark difference between the two?

A: The 9375F’s average benchmark score is 162497, and the 7663’s is 161973, giving the 9375F a 0.3% edge. The 7663’s nearest rival list shows a -0.3% deltaPct relative to the 9375F.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The 9375F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the 7663 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has a higher transistor count?

A: The 9375F contains 66,520 million transistors on a 4 nm process, while the 7663 contains 33,200 million transistors on a 7 nm process.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the 7663’s lead is greater than 20%?

A: Yes, in passmark_data_encryption the 7663 leads by 34.1%, and in passmark_integer_math by 17.1%. No other 7663 wins exceed 12.6%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9375F wins in every Cinebench test, all six of them, by a uniform 16.7%—this covers both multi-core and single-core render workloads. In Passmark, it wins 11 tests, with the largest margins in prime number finding (106.7%), extended instructions (74%), and single-thread performance (44.4%). It also wins multithread (16.7%), physics (12.5%), floating point math (3.5%), and data compression (3.4%). Use the 9375F for high-frequency trading, real-time analytics, or any workload where per-core latency and clock speed are paramount. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suited for memory-intensive single-process workloads.

The AMD EPYC 7663 wins three Passmark tests: data encryption (34.1% ahead), integer math (17.1% ahead), and random string sorting (12.6% ahead). These wins indicate a strength in parallel integer operations that can leverage its 112 threads. Use the 7663 for encryption gateways, compression pipelines, or sorting-heavy data processing where the software is optimized for many cores and where its 240 TDP provides a lower thermal envelope than the 9375F’s 320 TDP. Its 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth and eight-channel DDR4 are sufficient for these workloads, and its 256 MB shared L3 cache matches the 9375F’s capacity.

For mixed workloads, the 9375F’s 14 wins versus 3 wins, combined with its 16.7% multithread advantage in Cinebench and Passmark multithread, suggest it is the more broadly capable processor. The 7663’s aggregate score is close enough that the choice hinges on specific application behavior—if encryption or integer throughput is the bottleneck, the 7663 is superior; otherwise, the 9375F’s per-core speed and newer memory subsystem likely deliver better overall responsiveness and throughput.