AMD EPYC 7H12 vs AMD Ryzen 3 7335U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across all six Cinebench tests in the database, the AMD EPYC 7H12 claims victory with a remarkably consistent margin. The deltas hover just above 453% in every single test, suggesting that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

The multicore results are where the EPYC 7H12 demonstrates its most dramatic advantage. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC scores 59188 against the Ryzen 3 7335U's 10703, a delta of 453%. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 24858 versus 4495, again a 453% advantage. Even the older R15 multicore benchmark follows the same script, with 5965 versus 1078 and a 453.3% delta. These are not marginal differences; they reflect the fundamental disparity in core count and thread count between the two parts.

What is more surprising is the single-core picture. The EPYC 7H12 also wins the single-threaded tests by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC records 8355 while the Ryzen 3 7335U manages only 1511, a 452.9% delta. The R20 single-core test shows 3509 versus 634, and the R15 single-core test shows 842 versus 152. The consistency of these deltas is striking. A casual observer might expect the mobile chip with a higher boost clock to at least narrow the gap in single-threaded workloads, but the data does not support that expectation.

The Ryzen 3 7335U does have a higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.60 GHz) and a substantially higher boost clock (4.30 GHz versus 3.30 GHz). Yet the benchmark results indicate that raw clock speed alone does not translate into Cinebench single-core victories here. The EPYC's Zen 2 architecture, despite being a generation older than the Zen 3+ in the Ryzen, delivers far superior single-thread scores in these tests. The database's head-to-head table lists six wins for the EPYC and zero for the Ryzen, with every delta between 452.9% and 453.9%.

It is notably the Ryzen 3 7335U has additional PassMark benchmarks recorded in the database, while the EPYC 7H12 does not. Those PassMark scores include a data compression result of 146309, data encryption at 9335, and integer math at 42493. However, since no comparable EPYC scores exist in the pack, these cannot be used for a direct comparison. The Cinebench suite remains the only common ground between the two processors.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story from the head-to-head deltas. The EPYC 7H12 has an average benchmark score of 17120, while the Ryzen 3 7335U sits at 16827. That is a difference of only 293 points, roughly 1.7%. This compresses the gap dramatically because the average includes the broader PassMark results for the Ryzen, which are not mirrored for the EPYC. The percentile rankings are similarly close: the EPYC sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the Ryzen rests at the 70th percentile. In percentile terms, these are nearly identical processors, even though their Cinebench results are worlds apart.

This contradiction is worth investigating. How can two chips with a 453% gap in every shared benchmark sit within one percentile point of each other globally? The answer likely lies in the composition of the benchmark pool. The Ryzen's PassMark results, particularly the single-thread score of 3053 and the multithread score of 12592, contribute to a high average despite low Cinebench numbers. The EPYC's average is built entirely from its six Cinebench scores. The database's aggregation method clearly weights these suites differently, and the percentile reflects a broad cross-section of workloads rather than the narrow Cinebench slice.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip adds context. The EPYC 7H12's closest competitor is the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U, with an average score of 17074 and a delta of 0.3%. The AMD EPYC 7573X is also within 0.3%, scoring 17070. The Intel Core i5-11400 sits at 17067, again 0.3% away. On the other side, the Intel Core i5-11400F is 0.3% ahead of the EPYC with 17177. These are essentially statistical ties. For the Ryzen 3 7335U, the Intel Core i3-12100E is 0.2% ahead at 16853, while the Intel Core i5-1235U trails by 0.3% at 16770. The AMD Ryzen 5 7235HS leads by 0.4% with 16902. Both chips are clustered tightly among their peers by average score, even though their Cinebench deltas against each other are enormous.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for anyone prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering workloads. The AMD EPYC 7H12 dominates every shared benchmark with a margin above 452%. Its 64 cores and 128 threads versus the Ryzen 3 7335U's 4 cores and 8 threads create an insurmountable multicore advantage. For server workloads, virtualized environments, or any compute task that scales across many threads, the EPYC is the clear selection.

The Ryzen 3 7335U, however, is not without its own logic. It is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, while the EPYC draws 280 W. It supports DDR5 memory and includes integrated Radeon 660M graphics, features the EPYC lacks entirely. Its PassMark results show respectable throughput in areas like data compression (146309) and integer math (42493). For a thin-and-light laptop or a low-power workstation, the Ryzen makes sense. The EPYC cannot be installed in such a chassis: it requires a Socket SP3 server platform, not the Socket FP7 mobile platform.

The percentile data suggests both chips are comparable in overall standing among all CPUs, with the EPYC at the 71st percentile and the Ryzen at the 70th. This means the Ryzen is not a weak processor by global standards; it simply faces a lopsided matchup against a 64-core server part. The choice depends entirely on the use case. Static rendering, heavy multi-threaded compute, or server consolidation points to the EPYC. Mobile productivity, integrated graphics, and low power consumption point to the Ryzen.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 wins with a score of 59188, compared to the Ryzen 3 7335U's 10703, a delta of 453%.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 7335U have any advantage in single-core Cinebench tests?

A: No. The EPYC 7H12 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23) with deltas between 452.9% and 453.9%.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of overall percentile ranking?

A: The EPYC 7H12 is at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, while the Ryzen 3 7335U is at the 70th percentile, a difference of just one percentile point.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The EPYC 7H12 supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 3 7335U supports DDR5 memory with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 7335U include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon 660M integrated graphics. The EPYC 7H12 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor by average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7H12's nearest rival is the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U with a delta of 0.3%. The Ryzen 3 7335U's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-12100E with a delta of -0.2%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field recorded. The EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the Ryzen 3 7335U has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the EPYC and 3.00 GHz for the Ryzen. Boost clocks are 3.30 GHz and 4.30 GHz, respectively. The TDP difference is substantial: 280 W for the EPYC versus 28 W for the Ryzen.

The sockets are incompatible. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP7. Memory support diverges as well: the EPYC uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, while the Ryzen includes Radeon 660M. The market segments are likewise different: Server/Workstation for the EPYC, Mobile for the Ryzen.

The release dates differ by more than three years. The EPYC was released on September 17, 2019, while the Ryzen arrived on January 3, 2023. The process nodes also differ: the EPYC uses a 7 nm process, while the Ryzen uses 6 nm, both fabricated by TSMC. The die sizes are reversed in an interesting way: the EPYC's die is listed at 74 mm², while the Ryzen's is 208 mm². The transistor count is only listed for the EPYC at 3,800 million.

Cache configurations are markedly different. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 cache is 32 times larger. Both support ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 4, though the Ryzen specifies 20 lanes (CPU only). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7H12 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, part of the EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)) generation. The Ryzen 3 7335U uses Zen 3+ with the codename Rembrandt-R, part of the Ryzen 3 (Zen 3+ (Rembrandt)) generation. The EPYC's process node is 7 nm, while the Ryzen's is 6 nm, both from TSMC.

The core and thread disparity drives most architectural differences. The EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads are designed for heavy parallel workloads, with a massive 256 MB shared L3 cache to feed data to all those cores. The Ryzen's 4 cores and 8 threads are built for efficiency and mobility, with a modest 8 MB shared L3 cache. The L1 cache also differs: 96 KB per core on the EPYC versus 64 KB per core on the Ryzen. L2 cache is identical at 512 KB per core.

Memory architecture reflects the target markets. The EPYC's eight-channel DDR4 support with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth is a server-class feature, while the Ryzen's dual-channel DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth suits mobile constraints. The Ryzen integrates Radeon 660M graphics, which the EPYC does not have. The Ryzen also has a smaller TDP of 28 W versus 280 W, which implies a radically different thermal design and power delivery system.

The production status for both is listed as Active. Neither processor has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. The part numbers differ: the EPYC is 100-000000055, while the Ryzen is 100-000000537 (FP7) and 100-000000549 (FP7r2).

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7H12 wins every shared benchmark in the database. All six Cinebench tests, both multicore and single-core, go to the EPYC with deltas above 452%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload measured by Cinebench: 3D rendering, video encoding, or any multi-threaded compute task that scales with core count. The 256 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth also position it for server workloads, database processing, and virtualization where large datasets must be moved quickly.

The Ryzen 3 7335U wins in domains the EPYC cannot even enter. It is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, suitable for laptops and compact systems where the 280 W EPYC would be physically and thermally impossible. It includes Radeon 660M integrated graphics, enabling light gaming and media playback without a discrete GPU. It supports DDR5 memory, which offers newer memory technology. Its PassMark scores show strengths in data compression (146309), data encryption (9335), extended instructions (10314), and integer math (42493), though no EPYC comparison is available for these tests.

The percentile rankings suggest both processors are competitive in their respective classes. The EPYC sits at the 71st percentile, the Ryzen at the 70th. The Ryzen's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12100E and Intel Core i5-1235U, both within a fraction of a percent. The EPYC's rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U and AMD EPYC 7573X, also within a fraction. For a user choosing between these two specific processors, the decision is not about overall quality but about platform and workload. Server and workstation users choose the EPYC. Mobile users choose the Ryzen. The data supports both conclusions.