AMD EPYC 7H12 vs AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data paints an unusually one-sided picture. Across all six shared Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7H12 wins every single contest, and it does so by a massive margin. The Ryzen 3 8300GE trails by roughly 80% in every test, a consistent deficit that speaks to the fundamental gulf between a 4-core desktop chip and a 64-core server processor.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7H12 scores 59,188 while the Ryzen 3 8300GE manages 11,705, a delta of -80.2%. That is not a close race; it is a category difference. The single-core R23 result tells a similar story, with the EPYC at 8,355 versus the Ryzen's 1,652, again a -80.2% gap. What is surprising here is that the EPYC's single-core dominance is proportionally identical to its multi-core lead, which suggests the Zen 2 architecture in the server chip is not being held back by its higher core count in lightly threaded workloads.

The pattern holds in older Cinebench versions. In R20 multi-core, the EPYC posts 24,858 versus 4,916, while in R15 multi-core it reaches 5,965 against 1,179. The single-core R20 numbers are 3,509 versus 693, and R15 single-core shows 842 versus 166. Every delta sits at -80.2% or -80.3%, meaning the relative performance ratio is nearly identical across all tests. That regularity is notable: it implies the two chips are scaling almost perfectly with their respective resources, with no architectural bottleneck disproportionately favoring one side.

For the Ryzen 3 8300GE, the only benchmarks recorded beyond Cinebench are PassMark results, where it shows respectable figures for its class: 15,5164 in data compression, 8,603 in encryption, 11,923 in extended instructions, and 24,681 in floating point math. But the head-to-head comparison offers no equivalent PassMark scores for the EPYC, so the database cannot directly compare those workloads. What the data does show is that in every measurable shared test, the EPYC 7H12 is faster by an order of magnitude, not a small increment.

The nearest rival data places the Ryzen 3 8300GE at an average benchmark score of 17,614, with its closest competitor being the Intel Core i3-14100T at 17,648, a difference of -0.2%. The EPYC 7H12, by contrast, averages 17,120, with the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U at 17,074, a 0.3% gap. Both chips sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, which is an odd coincidence given how differently they achieve that standing. The Ryzen does it through high single-thread efficiency, while the EPYC relies on sheer core count. Their average scores are within 2.9% of each other, but the distribution of performance across workloads could not be more different.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Ryzen 3 8300GE uses Zen 4 on the Phoenix2 codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It packs 20,900 million transistors into a 137 mm² die. The EPYC 7H12 uses Zen 2 on the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, but with only 3,800 million transistors across a 74 mm² die. That transistor count difference is striking: the Ryzen has more than five times as many transistors on a die nearly twice as large, yet the EPYC delivers far higher throughput because it scales across 64 cores.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Ryzen offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the EPYC provides 64 cores and 128 threads. That 16x core advantage explains the multi-core benchmark results, but the single-core results are more puzzling. The EPYC's single-core scores are also roughly 80% higher than the Ryzen's, which contradicts the expectation that a newer, higher-clocked desktop chip should win in lightly threaded work. The Ryzen has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 4.90 GHz, versus the EPYC's 2.60 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Despite the Ryzen's 1.6 GHz boost advantage, the EPYC still wins single-core tests by a wide margin. The database does not provide enough detail to fully explain this, but it suggests that Cinebench's single-core path benefits from the EPYC's larger L3 cache and possibly different memory architecture.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Ryzen has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The EPYC's L3 is 32 times larger, which likely helps in data-heavy server workloads. Memory support also diverges: the Ryzen uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses DDR4 with eight-channel access and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 2.46 times higher, which matters for multi-threaded server tasks that stream large datasets. Both support ECC memory, but the Ryzen's integrated Radeon 740M graphics is absent on the EPYC, which has no integrated graphics at all.

The sockets differ completely. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The Ryzen's PCIe support is Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC lists Gen 4 without a lane count. The Ryzen is a desktop part with a 35 W TDP, while the EPYC is a server/workstation chip with a 280 W TDP. That 8x power envelope difference reflects the EPYC's much larger silicon footprint in terms of active cores, though the Ryzen's smaller die actually contains more transistors per square millimeter.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE has 4 cores and 8 threads. The EPYC provides 16 times the core count and 16 times the thread count.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 7H12 scores 59,188 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ryzen 3 8300GE scores 11,705. The EPYC leads by 80.2%, meaning it delivers more than five times the multi-core score.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 8300GE win in any shared benchmark?

A: No. Across all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7H12 wins every one. The Ryzen has zero wins and the EPYC has six wins in the database.

Q: What memory technologies do the two processors support?

A: The Ryzen 3 8300GE supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 7H12 supports DDR4 memory with eight-channel access and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ryzen 3 8300GE includes a Radeon 740M integrated GPU. The EPYC 7H12 has no integrated graphics, as is typical for server processors.

Q: What process nodes are used for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 3 8300GE is built on a 4 nm process, while the EPYC 7H12 uses a 7 nm process. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7H12 is the superior processor in every measured head-to-head benchmark. Its 80.2% lead in multi-core and single-core tests across all three Cinebench versions makes it the clear choice for any workload that the database records. The Ryzen 3 8300GE cannot close the gap in any shared test, and its only advantages appear in areas not covered by the head-to-head comparison, such as its integrated graphics and lower power draw.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, the EPYC 7H12 is the only rational option. Its 64 cores and 128 threads deliver 59,188 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a score that dwarfs the Ryzen's 11,705. Even in single-core tests, where the Ryzen's higher boost clock might be expected to help, the EPYC still wins by 80.3%, suggesting that its larger cache and server-class memory subsystem provide benefits that clock speed cannot offset.

The Ryzen 3 8300GE is not without merit in its own context. Its 35 W TDP, integrated Radeon 740M graphics, and DDR5 support make it suitable for compact desktop builds where power efficiency and a smaller footprint matter. But the database records no benchmark where it beats the EPYC, so any claim of superiority would be unsupported by the measurements.

The percentile ranking is a curiosity. Both chips sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close, with the Ryzen at 17,614 and the EPYC at 17,120. This suggests that when averaged across a wide range of tests, the two chips perform similarly overall. But the distribution is polar opposite: the Ryzen's average is buoyed by its PassMark results, while the EPYC's average comes from its Cinebench dominance. The verdict depends on which workload mix the database uses, and for the shared tests, the EPYC is the definitive winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Ryzen 3 8300GE has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 2.60 GHz, and boost clocks are 4.90 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. The TDP is 35 W versus 280 W. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM5, the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Architecture is Zen 4 (Phoenix2) versus Zen 2 (Rome). Process nodes are 4 nm versus 7 nm, both at TSMC.

Transistor counts are 20,900 million versus 3,800 million, and die sizes are 137 mm² versus 74 mm². Cache structures differ per core: L1 is 64 KB versus 96 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB versus 512 KB per core, and L3 is 8 MB shared versus 256 MB shared. Memory support is DDR5 versus DDR4, with dual-channel versus eight-channel buses. Memory bandwidth is 83.2 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 740M graphics, while the EPYC has none. PCIe is Gen 4 with 14 lanes on the Ryzen, versus Gen 4 with no listed lane count on the EPYC. The Ryzen was released on 2024-04-15, while the EPYC launched on 2019-09-17. The Ryzen's part number is 100-000001496, and the EPYC's is 100-000000055.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7H12 wins in every recorded Cinebench test, which means it is the stronger choice for rendering, simulation, and other multi-threaded compute tasks that those benchmarks represent. Its 64 cores and 256 MB of L3 cache make it suited for server workloads that demand massive parallel throughput. The EPYC also leads in single-core Cinebench, which is unexpected given its lower clock speeds, but the data shows a consistent 80.2% to 80.3% advantage across all tests. For any workload measured in the database, the EPYC is the winner.

The Ryzen 3 8300GE wins in areas not covered by the shared benchmarks. It has integrated Radeon 740M graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. It uses DDR5 memory, which offers newer memory technology, and it operates at a 35 W TDP, making it far more power-efficient for desktop use. Its PassMark results show strong numbers in data compression (155,164), encryption (8,603), and floating point math (24,681), but the EPYC has no comparable PassMark scores in the database, so no direct comparison is possible. The Ryzen's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100T and i3-13100F, both within 0.2% of its average score, which places it firmly in the entry-level desktop segment.

The practical takeaway is that the EPYC 7H12 is the benchmark champion in all shared tests, while the Ryzen 3 8300GE finds its niche in low-power desktop systems where its integrated graphics and modest TDP are assets. Neither chip is a substitute for the other, and the database's head-to-head results should be read as a measure of raw performance, not a recommendation for every use case. For users who need the recorded Cinebench performance, the EPYC is the definitive choice. For users who need a compact, power-efficient desktop processor with graphics output, the Ryzen has advantages that the benchmarks do not capture.