AMD EPYC 9374F vs AMD Ryzen 3 210 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9374F and the AMD Ryzen 3 210 sit in entirely different corners of the catalog, yet the database shows both processors landing in the same overall percentile (71) against all measured CPUs, a quirk that makes this comparison worth unpacking. One is a 32-core server workhorse built for Socket SP5 platforms, the other a 4-core mobile part with integrated graphics and a 28 W thermal envelope. The head-to-head results are lopsided in raw throughput terms, but the two chips are engineered for jobs that barely overlap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every direct comparison in the database goes to the EPYC 9374F, and the margins are among the most extreme you will find between two active AMD parts. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 7026 against 1128 for the Ryzen 3 210, a gap of roughly 523 percent. The single-core result is nearly identical: 991 versus 159, again about 523 percent in the EPYC's favor. That symmetry is unusual and telling: even on workloads limited to one thread, where core counts are irrelevant, the server chip dominates.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core ends at 29276 to 4703 (approximately 522 percent apart), and single-core at 4133 to 664 (about 522 percent apart). Cinebench R23 closes the sweep: 69707 versus 11198 in multi-core, and 9841 versus 1581 in single-core, both gaps sitting around 522 percent. The EPYC takes all six recorded head-to-head tests.

Why is the single-core gap so large when both chips share the same Zen 4 architecture? Boost clocks explain most of it. The Ryzen 3 210 actually boosts higher on paper, reaching 4.70 GHz against the EPYC's 4.30 GHz, but its 3.00 GHz base clock is well below the EPYC's 3.85 GHz base. In sustained rendering workloads a mobile part with a 28 W TDP cannot hold peak clocks the way a 320 W server processor with enterprise cooling can, and the recorded scores reflect that reality. The data shows the EPYC delivering more than six times the throughput of the Ryzen even when only one core is in play.

Context from each chip's rival set sharpens the picture. The EPYC 9374F's average benchmark score of 17693 places it within a fraction of a percent of chips like the Intel Core i7-1255U (0.2 percent), Intel Core i3-13100F (0.2 percent), Intel Core i3-14100T (0.3 percent), and AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE (0.4 percent) in aggregate terms. The Ryzen 3 210's average of 17321 is similarly close to the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 (-0.1 percent), Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.2 percent), Intel Core 7 150U (-0.4 percent), and Core i5-12450H (0.5 percent). In other words, the database's blended average metric pulls both chips toward the same middle band, even though their rendering performance is worlds apart.

The Ryzen 3 210's own benchmark sheet fills in the tests the EPYC does not have recorded entries for. Its Passmark single-thread score is 3724, with a multithread result of 13585. Other recorded results include 152017 in data compression, 8607 in encryption, 11464 in extended instructions, 49 in find-prime-numbers, 23649 in floating point math, 37933 in integer math, 821 in physics, and 19454 in random string sorting. These figures frame the Ryzen 3 210 as a modest but functional mobile processor, competitive within its class, rather than a rendering contender.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are AMD designs built on the Zen 4 architecture, manufactured by TSMC, and that is where the shared ground ends. The EPYC 9374F belongs to the EPYC 9004 series under the Genoa codename and is fabricated on a 5 nm process. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads into a multi-chip package described in the database as eight dies of 72 mm² each, totaling 52,560 million transistors. The Ryzen 3 210 uses the Hawk Point variant of Zen 4 on a denser 4 nm process, with a single 137 mm² die holding 20,900 million transistors, 4 cores, and 8 threads.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply at the last level. Per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (1 MB) allocations are identical between the two, but the EPYC carries 256 MB of shared L3 cache against just 8 MB on the Ryzen. That 32-fold difference in L3 capacity underpins much of the EPYC's advantage in memory-hungry server workloads.

The platform story is equally split. The EPYC 9374F uses Socket SP5, supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, offers 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 5 from the CPU, and supports ECC memory. The Ryzen 3 210 uses the mobile Socket FP7, dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth, 14 lanes of PCIe Gen 4, and no ECC support. One notable asymmetry: the Ryzen includes Radeon 740M integrated graphics, while the EPYC's integrated graphics field is empty, consistent with servers relying on discrete or BMC-driven display output.

Launch timing and positioning differ as well. The EPYC 9374F shipped in November 2022 as a Server/Workstation part with a launch MSRP of $4850. The Ryzen 3 210 arrived in January 2025 as a Mobile segment chip, with no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both remain in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9374F wins everywhere the two directly compete. Rendering is a rout: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both multi-core and single-core modes, all fall to the EPYC by margins around 522 percent. Sustained all-core throughput, the ability to hold high clocks under load, memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s), and PCIe expandability (128 Gen 5 lanes versus 14 Gen 4 lanes) all favor the server chip decisively.

The Ryzen 3 210 wins on dimensions the benchmarks do not measure directly. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, the Radeon 740M. It operates at a 28 W TDP versus 320 W for the EPYC, a qualitative difference in power scale that makes it viable in thin mobile designs where the EPYC is physically and thermally impossible. Its newer 4 nm process node is technically denser than the EPYC's 5 nm. And its higher 4.70 GHz boost clock gives it a nominally higher single-thread ceiling, even if the recorded rendering data shows it cannot exploit that ceiling under sustained load.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in benchmarks?

A: The EPYC 9374F wins all six recorded head-to-head tests, taking Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes by roughly 522 percent in each case.

Q: Do the two chips share the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use AMD's Zen 4 architecture, but different implementations: the EPYC 9374F is a Genoa server design on 5 nm, while the Ryzen 3 210 is a Hawk Point mobile design on 4 nm.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: Per-core L1 and L2 are identical (64 KB and 1 MB respectively), but shared L3 differs enormously: 256 MB on the EPYC versus 8 MB on the Ryzen 3 210.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 3 210 includes Radeon 740M integrated graphics. The EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: What memory support does each offer?

A: Both support DDR5, but the EPYC uses a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC support, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel memory at 89.6 GB/s without ECC.

Q: Which is newer?

A: The Ryzen 3 210, released in January 2025, is newer than the EPYC 9374F, which launched in November 2022 with a launch MSRP of $4850.

The Verdict

The data makes this a straightforward call once the use case is defined. Anyone whose workload is rendering, virtualization, sustained compute, or anything that scales across threads should take the EPYC 9374F without hesitation: it wins every head-to-head benchmark by a factor of more than six, pairs that with twelve-channel DDR5 at 460.8 GB/s, 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, ECC memory, and a 256 MB L3 cache. It is a 320 W Socket SP5 processor for Server/Workstation duty, launched at $4850.

The Ryzen 3 210 serves a different buyer. Its recorded Passmark results, including 3724 single-thread and 13585 multithread scores, position it as an entry-level mobile processor, and its rival set (Ryzen 5 4500, Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, Core 7 150U, Core i5-12450H, all within half a percent of its average score) confirms it competes in the mainstream notebook tier, not against server silicon. It brings Radeon 740M graphics, a 28 W TDP, and FP7 integration to designs where the EPYC simply cannot fit.

The coincidence of both chips sitting in the 71st percentile against the full database is a reminder that blended averages can obscure specialization. The EPYC 9374F is the performance pick in every measured contest. The Ryzen 3 210 is the pick when the constraint is power, form factor, and integrated graphics rather than throughput. Between the two, the recorded data leaves no ambiguity about which is faster, and equal clarity that they were never meant to compete.