AMD EPYC 7713 vs AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity in direct comparisons: the AMD EPYC 7713 dominates every single benchmark in the head-to-head set, and the margin is consistent across all six tests. The difference is not narrow; it is a uniform 82.9% gap in favor of the EPYC part in each case, whether the workload is single-threaded or heavily parallel.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE scores 1213, while the EPYC 7713 reaches 7096. That is a 5.8x advantage for the server chip. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 171 versus 1001, again a roughly 5.8x lead. The fact that the single-core gap matches the multi-core gap is notable, because it suggests the EPYC’s higher core count is not the only factor at play; even on a per-thread basis, the Zen 3 architecture in the EPYC 7713 outperforms the Zen 2 cores in the Ryzen part by a wide margin.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the results are consistent. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE posts 5058 in multi-core and 714 in single-core. The EPYC 7713 counters with 29568 and 4174, respectively. Again, the percentage delta is identical at 82.9%, meaning the EPYC is nearly 6x faster in both metrics. The absolute numbers are worth dwelling on: a 29,568 multi-core score is in a different performance class entirely, one that the 6-core desktop part cannot approach.

Cinebench R23, the most commonly cited of the three, reinforces the pattern. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE manages 12045 multi-core and 1700 single-core. The EPYC 7713 delivers 70401 and 9939. The multi-core score is 5.8x higher, and the single-core score is also 5.8x higher. The consistent 82.9% delta across all six tests indicates that the performance ratio is essentially fixed, independent of workload scaling.

What does this mean in practical terms? For any rendering task, video encoding workload, or scientific simulation that scales across threads, the EPYC 7713 will finish in roughly one-sixth the time of the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE. For single-threaded tasks, the EPYC still holds the same proportional advantage, which is unusual for a server processor. Typically, high-core-count parts lag in single-thread performance due to lower boost clocks, but here the EPYC’s 3.68 GHz boost clock, combined with the more efficient Zen 3 core design, is sufficient to outperform the Ryzen’s 4.20 GHz boost clock by a large margin.

The record shows zero wins for the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE in this head-to-head set. It is a clean sweep for the EPYC 7713, with all six benchmarks going its way. The database’s nearest rival data for each chip does not change the picture: the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE sits near the Intel Core Ultra 7 268V (average score 20897, delta 0%) and Intel Core i5-12600T (20917, -0.1%), while the EPYC 7713 is bracketed by the AMD EPYC 9454P (20422, -0.3%) and AMD Ryzen 5 8500G (20425, -0.3%). These rival comparisons place both chips in the same overall percentile (74th), but the direct test data shows that the EPYC is categorically superior to the Ryzen in every measured dimension.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7713 is the superior processor in every benchmark category recorded. If the choice is between these two specific parts, the EPYC 7713 wins on raw performance across the board, with a 82.9% advantage in each of the six Cinebench tests. There is no workload in the recorded data where the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE closes the gap, let alone overtakes the EPYC.

Who should pick the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE? Strictly from the recorded facts, it is the only option if the system requires an integrated GPU, as the EPYC 7713 has no integrated graphics. The Ryzen also consumes far less power (35 W TDP versus 225 W TDP), which is a qualitative difference in thermal and energy requirements, though the exact implications are not quantified in the database beyond those figures. It uses the AMD Socket AM4 platform, which is a desktop socket, whereas the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, a server socket. For a compact desktop build where a discrete GPU is not present, the Ryzen’s Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics are a functional necessity. The EPYC cannot output video without a separate graphics card.

Who should pick the EPYC 7713? Anyone who needs massive parallel throughput. The 64 cores and 128 threads are supported by a 256 MB shared L3 cache, eight-channel DDR4 memory support, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Ryzen offers 6 cores, 12 threads, 8 MB shared L3, dual-channel memory, and 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. For server workloads, database operations, virtualization, or high-performance computing, the EPYC’s specifications align with its benchmark dominance. The Ryzen is a desktop part; the EPYC is a server part, and the recorded performance data reflects that positioning.

The database shows both chips at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, which might suggest parity, but that percentile is based on average benchmark scores that include many workloads not in the head-to-head set. The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the EPYC wins all six tests by the same margin. The verdict, therefore, is that the EPYC 7713 is the right choice for performance-critical, multi-threaded, or single-threaded compute tasks where power and platform constraints allow a server processor. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is the right choice for a low-power desktop system that needs integrated graphics and can tolerate a 6-core ceiling.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD’s core designs. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE is built on Zen 2, with the codename Renoir, and belongs to the 4000 series. The EPYC 7713 is built on Zen 3, with the codename Milan, and belongs to the EPYC 7003 series. This architectural gap is the primary reason for the EPYC’s single-thread advantage despite its lower boost clock.

Both chips are fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ dramatically. The Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE has 9,800 million transistors on a die size of 156 mm². The EPYC 7713 has 33,200 million transistors spread across 8 chiplets, each measured at 81 mm². The EPYC’s multi-die design is typical of server parts, allowing for higher core counts and a much larger L3 cache. The Ryzen is a monolithic die, which is simpler but limits scalability.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is where the difference becomes stark. The Ryzen has 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3, which is 32 times larger. For workloads that repeatedly access a working set larger than 8 MB, the EPYC will avoid main memory accesses that the Ryzen cannot, contributing to its performance edge in the recorded benchmarks.

The memory controllers differ as well. The Ryzen supports dual-channel DDR4, while the EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4. The measured memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for the Ryzen and 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC. This fourfold bandwidth advantage is critical for multi-threaded workloads that saturate memory channels, such as the Cinebench multi-core tests where the EPYC’s 128 threads all need data simultaneously.

PCIe connectivity is another architectural split. The Ryzen provides PCIe Gen 3 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The newer PCIe generation doubles the per-lane bandwidth, and the lane count is over six times higher. For server applications with many NVMe drives or GPUs, this is a decisive factor, though the head-to-head benchmarks do not directly measure it.

The EPYC also supports ECC memory, as does the Ryzen, but the EPYC’s eight-channel configuration is designed for reliability and capacity in server environments. The Ryzen’s ECC support is present but on a desktop platform.

Specification Differences

Comparing the two parts field by field reveals the scale of their divergence:

• Cores and threads: The Ryzen has 6 cores and 12 threads; the EPYC has 64 cores and 128 threads.
• Base clock: The Ryzen runs at 3.30 GHz; the EPYC at 2.00 GHz. The EPYC’s base clock is lower, but its boost clock of 3.68 GHz nearly matches the Ryzen’s 4.20 GHz.
• TDP: The Ryzen is rated at 35 W; the EPYC at 225 W. This is a 6.4x difference in thermal design power.
• Socket: The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4; the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. They are not interchangeable.
• Integrated graphics: The Ryzen includes Radeon Vega 7; the EPYC has none.
• Memory bus: The Ryzen is dual-channel; the EPYC is eight-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.
• PCIe: The Ryzen offers Gen 3 with 20 lanes; the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes.
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared on the Ryzen; 256 MB shared on the EPYC.
• Release date: The Ryzen was released on 2022-11-10; the EPYC on 2021-03-14. The EPYC is older but still active in production status.
• Part numbers: The Ryzen is 100-000001156100-100001156MPK; the EPYC is 100-000000344100-000000344WOF.

The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7713 is $7060. The Ryzen has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7713 has 64 cores, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE has 6 cores.

Q: Is the EPYC 7713 faster in single-threaded tests?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9939 versus the Ryzen’s 1700, a 82.9% advantage. The same margin appears in R15 and R20 single-core tests.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon Vega 7. The EPYC 7713 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ryzen supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s, while the EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7713 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 8 MB on the Ryzen 5 PRO 4655GE.

Q: Are the two processors compatible with the same socket?

A: No. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4, and the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. They are not interchangeable.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Ryzen is rated at 35 W, while the EPYC is rated at 225 W. This makes the Ryzen far more power-efficient, though the EPYC delivers much higher performance.