AMD EPYC 7702 vs AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7702 takes a decisive victory, with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G trailing by roughly 79% in every single metric. This consistency is remarkable: whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the deltas hover between -78.9% and -79.0%, indicating a fundamental performance gap rather than a workload-specific advantage.

Starting with the multi-core results, the EPYC 7702 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 58,539 against the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G's 12,359. That is a 78.9% deficit for the desktop chip, and the pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 (24,586 vs 5,190) and Cinebench R15 (5,900 vs 1,245). The EPYC 7702's 64 cores and 128 threads simply overwhelm the 4-core, 8-thread Ryzen part in any heavily parallelized render.

What is more surprising is the single-core story. The EPYC 7702 wins every single-thread test by the same 78.9% margin, despite having a much lower boost clock of 3.35 GHz compared to the Ryzen's 4.90 GHz. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 8,264 versus the Ryzen's 1,744. The same gap appears in R20 (3,470 vs 732) and R15 (832 vs 175). This suggests the EPYC's architecture, despite being a generation older, delivers far more instructions per clock in these specific workloads, or the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is severely limited by its dual-CCX Phoenix2 design in single-threaded tasks.

The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. The EPYC 7702 claims all six. However, the aggregate benchmark averages tell a different story. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has an average benchmark score of 17,278, placing it at the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7702 averages 16,932, at the 70th percentile. This near-identical aggregate score is driven by the Ryzen's strong PassMark results, which include data compression at 150,567, integer math at 37,292, and floating-point math at 23,374. The EPYC 7702 lacks PassMark scores in the database, so its average is derived only from Cinebench, which skews heavily in its favor.

FAQ

Q: Why does the EPYC 7702 win every single-core benchmark despite a lower boost clock?

A: The data shows the EPYC 7702 scores 8,264 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 1,744 for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, a 78.9% gap. Clock speed is only one factor; the EPYC's Zen 2 architecture and larger per-core L1 cache (96 KB per core) likely contribute to higher instructions per clock in these tests.

Q: Which processor has better raw multi-threaded performance?

A: The EPYC 7702 dominates, scoring 58,539 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 12,359 for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G. This aligns with the EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads compared to 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall benchmark standing?

A: Surprisingly, yes. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G sits at the 71st percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 17,278, while the EPYC 7702 sits at the 70th percentile with 16,932. The Ryzen's PassMark scores boost its aggregate, while the EPYC's average is based solely on Cinebench results.

Q: What explains the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G's competitive aggregate score?

A: The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G records strong PassMark numbers, including 150,567 in data compression, 37,292 in integer math, and 23,374 in floating-point math. These specialized workloads show the desktop chip is efficient, even if it loses in Cinebench.

Q: Which CPU supports faster memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7702 offers 204.8 GB/s over eight DDR4 channels, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G provides 83.2 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5. The EPYC's memory subsystem is designed for server throughput.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features a Radeon 740M iGPU. The EPYC 7702 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server processor relying on discrete GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different eras and design philosophies. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is a Zen 4 part built on TSMC's 4 nm process, with the codename Phoenix2. It is a desktop-focused chip with 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 3.40 GHz, and a boost of 4.90 GHz. It packs 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The socket is AM5, and it supports DDR5 memory on a dual-channel bus. It also includes a Radeon 740M integrated GPU, which is absent on the EPYC.

The EPYC 7702 is a Zen 2 part on TSMC's 7 nm process, codenamed Rome. It is a server/workstation processor with 64 cores and 128 threads, running at a 2.00 GHz base clock and 3.35 GHz boost. It has 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die (per chiplet, as the database records). Its cache is much larger: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3. It uses AMD Socket SP3 and supports DDR4 memory across eight channels, giving it 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Both CPUs support ECC memory, but the EPYC's implementation targets server reliability.

The process node difference is notable: 4 nm versus 7 nm. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G's newer node allows higher clocks and better power efficiency, but the EPYC compensates with sheer core count and cache size. The Ryzen's Phoenix2 design is a hybrid approach, while Rome is a chiplet-based server design with a huge L3 cache. The EPYC also has PCIe Gen 4 support, though the database lists the Ryzen's PCIe as Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC's listing simply says Gen 4.

The Verdict

The data makes it clear: the AMD EPYC 7702 is the superior processor for heavy parallel workloads. Its 78.9% lead across all Cinebench tests, including single-threaded, is overwhelming. For anyone running multi-threaded renders, server virtualization, or scientific computing, the EPYC 7702 is the only choice. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of L3 cache are built for throughput. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G cannot compete in these scenarios, and the benchmark results show no workload where it wins.

However, the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is not without merit. Its aggregate benchmark score of 17,278 beats the EPYC's 16,932, and it sits at a higher percentile (71 vs 70). This is driven by its PassMark performance in data compression, integer math, and floating-point math. For a desktop user running mixed workloads, the Ryzen's modern 4 nm process and Radeon 740M iGPU make it a practical, self-contained solution. It supports DDR5 and offers a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, which no Cinebench test here fully exploits. The EPYC 7702 requires a server platform, external GPUs, and DDR4 memory, which limits its appeal to workstation or data-center setups.

The verdict is binary: pick the EPYC 7702 for raw compute density, pick the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G for a compact, integrated desktop build that still performs well in everyday tasks. The Ryzen's 71st percentile standing proves it is not a weak chip, but the EPYC's Cinebench dominance is absolute.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every specification category. Here are the fields where they diverge:

• Cores: 4 (Ryzen) vs 64 (EPYC)
• Threads: 8 vs 128
• Base Clock: 3.40 GHz vs 2.00 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.90 GHz vs 3.35 GHz
• TDP: 65 W vs 200 W
• Socket: AM5 vs SP3
• Architecture: Zen 4 vs Zen 2
• Codename: Phoenix2 vs Rome
• Process Node: 4 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 20,900 million vs 3,800 million
• Die Size: 137 mm² vs 74 mm²
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core vs 96 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 8 MB shared vs 256 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR5 vs DDR4
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel vs Eight-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 83.2 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 4, 14 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 4
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon 740M vs None
• Market Segment: Desktop vs Server/Workstation
• Release Date: 2024-04-15 vs 2019-08-06

Both support ECC memory and have locked multipliers. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is a 2024 product, while the EPYC 7702 launched in 2019, a five-year gap that explains the process node and architecture differences.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7702 wins every Cinebench workload in the database, including all multi-core and single-core tests. Its 78.9% lead is consistent across R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the clear winner for video rendering, 3D modeling, code compilation, and any task that scales with cores and threads. The 256 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth also favor large dataset processing and server virtualization. The EPYC's 64-core design is unmatched in this comparison for throughput.

The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G wins in aggregate benchmark scoring, thanks to its PassMark results. It achieves 150,567 in data compression, 37,292 in integer math, 23,374 in floating-point math, and 13,368 in multi-threaded PassMark. These scores are not in the head-to-head comparison, but they inform the overall average. For a desktop user, the Ryzen's strengths lie in single-threaded responsiveness (3,550 in PassMark single-thread), integrated graphics for basic display output, and lower power consumption at 65 W TDP. It also supports DDR5 memory, which is a modern standard.

In practical terms, the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G suits an office PC or a compact workstation where the iGPU eliminates the need for a discrete card. The EPYC 7702 belongs in a server rack, handling database workloads or high-core-count virtualization. The data shows no overlap: the EPYC is a compute monster, and the Ryzen is a balanced desktop chip. Choose based on your platform and workload, not raw benchmark averages, because the head-to-head results are unambiguous.