AMD EPYC 7C13 vs AMD EPYC 9375F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7C13 and AMD EPYC 9375F represent two distinct generations of server silicon. The 7C13 is a 64-core Zen 3 part built for the SP3 platform, while the 9375F is a 32-core Zen 5 part on the newer SP5 platform. Benchmark data shows a clear split: the 9375F dominates in raw compute throughput and single-threaded tasks, while the 7C13 retains advantages in specific memory and integer workloads. Their average benchmark scores are close—167,788 for the 7C13 versus 162,497 for the 9375F—with the 7C13 leading by 3.3% overall. This analysis breaks down where each processor wins, the architectural reasons behind those results, and the precise benchmark deltas that separate them.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9375F is the clear winner for compute-heavy and latency-sensitive workloads. It secures 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark wins, including all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single- and multi-core) and the PassMark multithread test. The 9375F’s victory in PassMark physics is particularly decisive, with a delta of -45.6% relative to the 7C13, indicating a massive advantage in simulated physics calculations. Similarly, the find prime numbers test shows a -61.4% delta, meaning the 9375F completes this workload in a fraction of the time. For single-threaded performance, the 9375F leads by -30.4% in both PassMark single-thread tests, making it the better choice for database queries, web serving, and any application with lightly threaded bottlenecks.

The EPYC 7C13 wins in exactly four benchmarks, but they are not trivial. Its largest victory comes in data encryption, where it leads by 55.9%—a significant margin that suggests a hardware advantage in cryptographic operations. It also wins data compression by 4.4%, integer math by 27%, and floating-point math by 2.5%. These results indicate that the 7C13 is superior for workloads that are heavily reliant on integer arithmetic, such as financial modeling, scientific simulations, and certain data processing pipelines. The floating-point win, while narrow, is notable given the 9375F’s superior clock speeds and newer architecture. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or depend on massive L3 cache capacity, the 7C13’s larger core count and shared cache layout provide a measurable edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different foundations. The EPYC 7C13 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, manufactured on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.68 GHz. The chip is composed of 8 chiplets, each 81 mm², totaling 33,200 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy is defined by a per-core L1 of 64 KB, per-core L2 of 512 KB, and a massive 256 MB shared L3. The 7C13 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, yielding 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. It is designed for the AMD Socket SP3 platform.

In contrast, the EPYC 9375F uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, on TSMC’s 4 nm process. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, which is half the core count of the 7C13, but operates at much higher frequencies: 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The 9375F is built from 8 chiplets of 70.6 mm² each, with 66,520 million transistors—roughly double the transistor count of the 7C13 despite fewer cores. Its cache is per-core larger: 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, with the same 256 MB shared L3. Memory support moves to DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus, pushing bandwidth to 576.0 GB/s, which is 2.8 times the 7C13’s figure. PCIe support is upgraded to Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The 9375F uses AMD Socket SP5 and was released on 2024-10-09.

These architectural differences explain the benchmark results. The 9375F’s higher clock speeds and newer Zen 5 cores deliver superior single-thread performance, while the 7C13’s 64 cores provide more parallelism for integer-heavy tasks. The 9375F’s doubled transistor count and newer process node likely improve instruction-level parallelism, which is reflected in its extended instructions win. However, the 7C13’s older but proven Zen 3 design still holds its own in specific memory-intensive operations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 9375F’s dominance in Cinebench is uniform across all versions. In Cinebench R15, it scores 8,205 versus 6,539 for the 7C13, a -20.3% delta. The same -20.3% delta appears in R20 multi-core (34,188 vs 27,246) and R23 multi-core (81,402 vs 64,873). Single-core deltas are identical at -20.3%: R15 scores 1,158 vs 923, R20 scores 4,826 vs 3,846, and R23 scores 11,492 vs 9,158. This consistency suggests a per-core performance advantage that scales linearly across all Cinebench workloads.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced picture. The 9375F wins PassMark multithread with 95,768 versus 76,322 (-20.3%), and PassMark physics with 9,019 versus 4,904 (-45.6%). Random string sorting also favors the 9375F at 161,091 versus 131,361 (-18.5%). Extended instructions show a -33.7% delta (128,296 vs 85,034), and find prime numbers shows -61.4% (1,397 vs 539). Single-thread performance is -30.4% in favor of the 9375F (3,762 vs 2,618).

The 7C13’s wins are concentrated in specific PassMark tests. Data compression is close: 1,562,251 vs 1,496,149, a 4.4% advantage. Data encryption is a blowout at 114,769 vs 73,634, a 55.9% lead. Integer math shows a 27% advantage (492,554 vs 387,901), while floating-point math is a narrow 2.5% win (266,846 vs 260,392). These results suggest the 7C13’s larger core count is better suited for parallel integer and encryption workloads, even though each individual core is slower.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster for single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F is significantly faster in single-threaded tasks. It leads by -30.4% in PassMark single-thread tests (3,762 vs 2,618) and by -20.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core (11,492 vs 9,158).

Q: Does the EPYC 7C13 have any advantages in memory-related workloads?

A: Yes. The 7C13 wins data compression by 4.4% (1,562,251 vs 1,496,149) and floating-point math by 2.5% (266,846 vs 260,392). Its 64 cores and shared 256 MB L3 cache help in these parallel workloads, despite the 9375F’s higher memory bandwidth.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7C13 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads. The 7C13 has exactly double the core and thread count of the 9375F.

Q: Which processor is better for encryption?

A: The EPYC 7C13 is vastly superior for data encryption, leading by 55.9% in the PassMark data encryption test (114,769 vs 73,634). This is the largest single benchmark delta between the two chips.

Q: What is the overall benchmark score difference?

A: The EPYC 7C13 has a higher average benchmark score of 167,788 compared to the 9375F’s 162,497, a 3.3% difference. This places the 7C13 slightly ahead of the 9375F in the overall standings.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7C13 and the EPYC 9375F rank in the 99th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are both top-tier server processors.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Field | AMD EPYC 7C13 | AMD EPYC 9375F |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 64 | 32 |

| Threads | 128 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2000.00 MHz | 3.85 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.68 GHz | 4.80 GHz |

| TDP | 225 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Milan | Turin |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Part Number | 100-000000315 | 100-000001197 |