AMD EPYC 9274F vs AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and AMD EPYC 9274F occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum. The Ryzen 5 1600 is a 6-core desktop part from the 1000 series, while the EPYC 9274F is a 24-core server chip from the EPYC 9004 series. Benchmark data shows the EPYC 9274F winning all four head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from -82.2% to -89.7%. Both processors share a 72 percentile rank among all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ slightly, with the EPYC at 18189 and the Ryzen at 17994.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This fourfold difference in core count is the primary driver of the EPYC's dominant multi-core scores.

Q: How do their single-core performance scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 9274F scores 8877, which is 89.7% ahead of the Ryzen 5 1600's 915. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a similar gap, with the EPYC at 894 and the Ryzen at 147, a delta of -83.6%.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?

A: The AMD EPYC 9274F has an average benchmark score of 18189, while the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 has an average of 17994. Despite this small difference, the EPYC's nearest rival is the Intel Core 5 315 with a 0% delta, and the Ryzen's nearest rival is the Intel Core 5 320 with a -0.2% delta.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 and the AMD EPYC 9274F have ECC memory support listed in their specifications. However, they differ in memory type, with the Ryzen using DDR4 and the EPYC using DDR5.

Q: What is the difference in their process nodes?

A: The Ryzen 5 1600 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the EPYC 9274F uses a 5 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC also has a significantly larger transistor count at 52,560 million compared to the Ryzen's 4,800 million.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 9274F boosts to 4.30 GHz, whereas the Ryzen 5 1600 boosts to 3.60 GHz. The EPYC's base clock of 4.05 GHz is also higher than the Ryzen's base clock of 3.20 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for server workloads: the AMD EPYC 9274F. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with multi-core deltas exceeding -89%. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache make it suitable for heavily threaded tasks. The Ryzen 5 1600, with its 6 cores and 12 threads, is a desktop part that cannot match the EPYC's throughput in any measured test.

For a desktop user building a system on a budget, the Ryzen 5 1600 is the only option that fits a consumer socket. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, which is a server platform, not a desktop one. The Ryzen's 65 W TDP is far lower than the EPYC's 320 W, and its 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are standard for its era. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes and twelve-channel memory bus are enterprise features that exceed desktop needs.

The launch MSRP for the Ryzen 5 1600 is $219, while the EPYC 9274F has a launch MSRP of $3060. These figures, combined with the benchmark results, indicate that the EPYC is for data centers, while the Ryzen is for mainstream desktops. No benchmark suggests the Ryzen can compete in EPYC's domain.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9274F scores 6338 against the Ryzen 5 1600's 1129, resulting in a -82.2% delta. This means the EPYC delivers over five times the multi-threaded performance in this test. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows an even larger gap: the EPYC scores 62884, while the Ryzen scores 6468, a delta of -89.7%.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, though the deltas are slightly different. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC's 894 beats the Ryzen's 147, a -83.6% difference. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the EPYC at 8877 and the Ryzen at 915, with a -89.7% delta. The EPYC's advantage is consistent across both single and multi-threaded workloads, suggesting architectural superiority beyond just core count.

The EPYC's wins are not marginal. Every delta exceeds 80%, and the largest gap is -89.7% in both Cinebench R23 tests. This indicates that the EPYC's Zen 4 architecture, 5 nm process, and higher clock speeds provide a substantial performance lead over the Zen-based Ryzen. The Ryzen's highest score in any head-to-head test is 6468 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is less than the EPYC's single-core score of 8877.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Ryzen 5 1600 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 9274F has 24 cores and 48 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for the Ryzen and 4.05 GHz for the EPYC, with boost clocks of 3.60 GHz and 4.30 GHz, respectively. The TDP is also vastly different: 65 W for the Ryzen versus 320 W for the EPYC.

Memory support separates them clearly. The Ryzen uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity differs as well, with the Ryzen offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only) and the EPYC offering Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC does not. Their sockets are incompatible: AM4 for the Ryzen and SP5 for the EPYC.

Cache configurations are another major divergence. The Ryzen has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 is 16 times larger than the Ryzen's 16 MB, which helps with data-heavy server workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap spans generations. The Ryzen 5 1600 uses Zen (Summit Ridge) architecture on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. The EPYC 9274F uses Zen 4 (Genoa) architecture on a 5 nm process from TSMC. This process shrink contributes to the EPYC's higher clocks and better efficiency per core, despite its much higher total TDP.

Transistor counts illustrate the scale difference. The Ryzen packs 4,800 million transistors into a 213 mm² die. The EPYC uses 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² chiplets. This multi-die design enables the EPYC's 24 cores and extensive cache. The codename for the Ryzen is Zen, while the EPYC's codename is Genoa, reflecting their different design goals.

Feature sets differ in memory and I/O. The Ryzen's dual-channel DDR4 support is typical for 2017 desktop parts. The EPYC's twelve-channel DDR5 support is for high-bandwidth server memory. Similarly, the Ryzen's 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are for a single GPU and NVMe drive, while the EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support many accelerators and network cards. Both processors lack integrated graphics, but the EPYC's platform expects discrete or remote management graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9274F wins in every measured benchmark category. Its 24 cores deliver 6338 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 62884 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, making it suitable for rendering, scientific computing, and virtualization. The 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth support data-intensive workloads. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock also gives it a single-core edge, scoring 8877 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Ryzen 5 1600 wins only in the context of its platform. It fits AMD Socket AM4, which is a mainstream desktop socket with low-cost motherboards. Its 65 W TDP allows for modest cooling solutions. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are adequate for a single graphics card and storage. The unlocked multiplier enables overclocking, a feature absent on the EPYC. Its DDR4 support and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth are enough for typical desktop applications.

For users running heavily threaded server workloads, the EPYC is the clear choice. For a desktop system where cost and power are priorities, the Ryzen is the only compatible option. The data does not indicate any workload where the Ryzen outperforms the EPYC; the EPYC's lowest winning margin is -82.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. The Ryzen's niche is its socket, TDP, and price, not its performance relative to the EPYC.