AMD EPYC 9274F vs AMD Ryzen 3 8300G Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9274F and AMD Ryzen 3 8300G represent two vastly different interpretations of AMD’s Zen 4 architecture. The EPYC 9274F is a 24-core server processor built for maximum throughput, while the Ryzen 3 8300G is a 4-core desktop chip with integrated graphics. Benchmark data shows a complete sweep for the EPYC in Cinebench tests, but the Ryzen 3 holds its own in the broader performance landscape, with both achieving the same 72nd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The data reveals that these processors are optimized for entirely different workloads, and their performance profiles reflect that divergence.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9274F is the undisputed champion in multi-threaded and single-threaded compute benchmarks. Across all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23 in both multicore and singlecore variants—the EPYC 9274F wins decisively. Its multicore scores range from 6,338 in Cinebench R15 to 62,884 in Cinebench R23, dwarfing the Ryzen 3 8300G’s corresponding scores of 1,231 and 12,217. This makes the EPYC the clear choice for server workloads, data center applications, and any task that demands massive parallel processing power. With 24 cores and 48 threads, it delivers over four times the multicore performance of the Ryzen 3 in every tested scenario, a margin that speaks to its enterprise-focused design.

The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G wins in the context of its platform and physical footprint. While it loses every benchmark comparison, it does so with a 65W TDP, a dual-channel memory bus, and a compact 137 mm² die size. The EPYC 9274F, by contrast, draws 320W and uses a massive 8x 72 mm² multi-chip design. The Ryzen 3 also integrates a Radeon 740M GPU, a feature entirely absent from the EPYC. For a desktop user who needs a functional system without a discrete graphics card, the Ryzen 3 8300G offers a complete package. Its PassMark scores—15,8952 in data compression, 9,115 in data encryption, and 40,534 in integer math—demonstrate capable everyday performance, even if it cannot match the EPYC’s raw compute muscle.

The percentile ranking tells a nuanced story: both CPUs sit at the 72nd percentile versus all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (18,189 for the EPYC, 18,169 for the Ryzen 3). This means that in the grand scheme of all processors, the Ryzen 3 8300G is surprisingly competitive on a per-score basis, despite its massive disadvantage in core count. The EPYC wins outright in raw performance, but the Ryzen 3 wins in efficiency and feature integration.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the EPYC a six-fold advantage in core count and a six-fold advantage in thread count.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multicore scores for each CPU?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F scores 62,884 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G scores 12,217. The EPYC leads by 414.7% in this test.

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

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G features integrated Radeon 740M graphics. The AMD EPYC 9274F has no integrated graphics, making it dependent on a discrete GPU.

Q: What memory configurations do the two CPUs support?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel memory bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G supports DDR5 over a dual-channel memory bus, with a bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s.

Q: What are the launch prices for these processors?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has a launch MSRP of $3060. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has a launch MSRP of $176.

Q: Which CPU has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F scores 8,877 in Cinebench R23 singlecore, compared to 1,724 for the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G. The EPYC leads by 414.9% in this test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9274F wins all six Cinebench comparisons, and it does so by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 6,338 against the Ryzen 3’s 1,231, a delta of 414.9%. The single-core test in R15 shows the EPYC at 894 versus 173, a 416.8% advantage. Moving to R20, the EPYC’s multicore score of 26,411 versus 5,131 represents a 414.7% lead, while its single-core score of 3,728 versus 724 is a 414.9% difference.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three, tells the same story. The EPYC’s multicore score of 62,884 crushes the Ryzen 3’s 12,217 by 414.7%. In single-core, the EPYC’s 8,877 versus 1,724 yields a 414.9% margin. The consistency of these deltas—hovering between 414.7% and 416.8%—suggests that the performance gap scales uniformly across workload types, regardless of the Cinebench version. This is not a case where the Ryzen 3 closes the gap in newer tests; the EPYC’s advantage remains mathematically stable.

The Ryzen 3 8300G, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, still posts respectable absolute numbers. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 12,217 is more than double the EPYC’s single-core score of 8,877, showing that even a 4-core chip can outperform a single high-end server core. The PassMark results for the Ryzen 3 further illustrate its capability: 25,336 in floating point math, 40,534 in integer math, and 14,018 in multithread. These scores, while not directly compared to EPYC data, indicate a processor that can handle typical desktop workloads with ease.

Specification Differences

The specification gap between these two CPUs is vast. The EPYC 9274F runs on the AMD Socket SP5 platform, while the Ryzen 3 8300G uses AMD Socket AM5. The EPYC’s base clock is 4.05 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, whereas the Ryzen 3 has a lower base clock of 3.40 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz. Both are unlocked? No—both have locked multipliers, as indicated by `multiplierUnlocked: false`.

Memory support differs dramatically: the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen 3 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also diverge: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 3 offers Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only). The TDP is another stark contrast, with the EPYC at 320W and the Ryzen 3 at 65W.

The Ryzen 3 8300G includes integrated Radeon 740M graphics, a feature the EPYC lacks entirely. Release dates place the EPYC on 2022-11-09 and the Ryzen 3 on 2024-01-07. The part numbers are distinct, and the market segments—Server/Workstation versus Desktop—reflect their intended use cases.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD’s Zen 4 architecture, but they diverge in process node and physical design. The EPYC 9274F uses a 5 nm process from TSMC, while the Ryzen 3 8300G uses a more advanced 4 nm process. The EPYC’s codename is Genoa, part of the EPYC 9004 series, while the Ryzen 3’s codename is Phoenix2, part of the 8000 series. Transistor counts reflect their scale: the EPYC packs 52,560 million transistors across an 8x 72 mm² multi-chip design, while the Ryzen 3 has 20,900 million transistors on a single 137 mm² die.

Cache configurations highlight the EPYC’s server pedigree. The EPYC has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to just 8 MB on the Ryzen 3. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core. The EPYC’s massive L3 cache is a key differentiator for server workloads that benefit from large working sets. The Ryzen 3, with its smaller cache, is optimized for lower latency and desktop responsiveness.

The architecture differences extend to the memory controller and I/O. The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are designed for enterprise storage and networking, while the Ryzen 3’s dual-channel bus and 14 PCIe Gen 4 lanes suit a consumer desktop. The Ryzen 3’s integrated Radeon 740M GPU is a significant architectural addition, enabling graphics output without a discrete card. The EPYC, as a server part, omits integrated graphics entirely. These architectural choices define the two processors’ roles: the EPYC as a data center workhorse, the Ryzen 3 as a versatile desktop chip.