AMD EPYC 9374F vs AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9374F and AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE represent two extremes of the Zen 4 architecture, yet their average benchmark scores place them within 0.4% of each other. This is a classic case of a dedicated server/workstation processor with massive throughput capabilities being compared against a low-power desktop chip with a high boost clock and integrated graphics. The data shows that while the EPYC 9374F wins every single head-to-head benchmark by a factor of nearly 6x, the Ryzen 3 8300GE’s overall average score is propped up by a different set of tests, leading to a near-identical percentile ranking of 71 for both parts. This analysis breaks down where each processor truly excels based purely on the benchmark results provided.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 17693, compared to the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE’s 17614. This puts the EPYC just 0.4% ahead of the Ryzen in the provided nearestRivals data.

Q: How significant is the EPYC 9374F’s lead in multi-core tests?

A: It is overwhelming. In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the EPYC scores 69707 against the Ryzen’s 11705, a delta of 495.5%. This pattern repeats across R15 and R20 multi-core tests, where the EPYC leads by roughly 495.9% and 495.5%, respectively.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 8300GE win any of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The head-to-head data includes six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23 in both single and multi-core), and the AMD EPYC 9374F wins all six. The winsA count is 6, and winsB is 0.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The EPYC 9374F utilizes a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. In contrast, the Ryzen 3 8300GE has a dual-channel bus with a much lower 83.2 GB/s peak bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes an integrated GPU?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE includes integrated graphics, specifically the Radeon 740M. The EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

Q: Are both processors based on the same core architecture?

A: Yes, both are based on Zen 4 architecture. However, they are manufactured on different process nodes; the EPYC 9374F uses a 5 nm node, while the Ryzen 3 8300GE uses a 4 nm node, both from TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The data presents a starkly divided picture of utility, defined almost entirely by core count and memory subsystems. The AMD EPYC 9374F is the undisputed winner in every scenario involving heavy multi-threaded compute. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with a 256 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel memory, make it a dominant force in raw throughput. The Cinebench multi-core results confirm this; the EPYC achieves a score of 29276 in R20 and 69707 in R23, figures that dwarf the Ryzen’s 4916 and 11705. This processor is built for sustained, all-core workloads where memory bandwidth and cache capacity are critical.

The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE wins in scenarios that require minimal power draw and integrated graphics. With a TDP of just 35 watts compared to the EPYC’s 320 watts, it is designed for efficiency. While it loses on raw single-core score in the head-to-head Cinebench tests, its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz suggests a design for responsive, light-threaded tasks. The presence of the Radeon 740M integrated GPU is its key advantage, enabling a full system without a discrete graphics card. In the broader Passmark suite, it shows strengths in specific tasks like data compression (155164) and integer math (39163), which are not part of the head-to-head comparison but contribute to its competitive average score.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two CPUs is vast, despite both being built on AMD’s Zen 4 core design. The EPYC 9374F, codenamed Genoa, is a 32-core, 64-thread behemoth designed for the server and workstation market. It is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process and fits into the AMD Socket SP5 platform. Its most defining feature is the massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache, supported by a twelve-channel DDR5 memory controller that provides 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. This configuration is designed to feed the immense parallel processing power of its cores and handle large datasets in memory.

Conversely, the Ryzen 3 8300GE, codenamed Phoenix2, is a 4-core, 8-thread desktop part for the AMD Socket AM5 platform. It is built on a more advanced 4 nm TSMC process, yet features a much smaller 8 MB shared L3 cache and a dual-channel DDR5 memory controller with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. It integrates a Radeon 740M GPU, a feature entirely absent from the EPYC. The Ryzen also carries 14 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the EPYC offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. These differences show a design for low-power, mainstream computing versus one for high-performance enterprise infrastructure.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two processors diverge on almost every major point. The core and thread counts differ drastically: the EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Ryzen 3 8300GE has 4 cores and 8 threads. Their clock speeds are also inverted in a sense; the EPYC has a base clock of 3.85 GHz and a boost of 4.30 GHz, whereas the Ryzen has a lower base of 3.50 GHz but a significantly higher boost of 4.90 GHz. The power envelopes are in different leagues, with the EPYC rated at a 320 W TDP against the Ryzen’s 35 W TDP.

The cache and memory specifications highlight the EPYC’s server pedigree. The L3 cache is 256 MB shared on the EPYC versus 8 MB shared on the Ryzen. Memory support is DDR5 for both, but the EPYC uses a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, and the Ryzen uses a dual-channel bus with 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe connectivity also differs, with the EPYC offering 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) and the Ryzen offering 14 Gen 4 lanes. The die size and transistor count are dramatically different: the EPYC has 52,560 million transistors on an 8x 72 mm² die, while the Ryzen has 20,900 million on a single 137 mm² die. The EPYC was released in November 2022 with a launch MSRP of $4850, while the Ryzen came later in April 2024 with no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a complete rout. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 9374F wins every time with a delta of approximately 496% over the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE. In the single-core tests, the EPYC scores 991 in R15, 4133 in R20, and 9841 in R23. The Ryzen scores 166, 693, and 1652 in the same respective tests. The deltas are 497%, 496.4%, and 495.7%, respectively. This shows that even in single-threaded performance, the EPYC’s higher base clock and architecture scaling give it a massive advantage over the Ryzen, despite the Ryzen’s higher boost clock.

The multi-core tests show an even starker picture of absolute capability. The EPYC scores 7026 in R15, 29276 in R20, and 69707 in R23. The Ryzen’s scores are 1179, 4916, and 11705, respectively. The deltas are 495.9%, 495.5%, and 495.5%. This consistent 5x performance gap is a direct result of the EPYC’s 8x core count advantage and its superior memory bandwidth. While the Ryzen 3 8300GE has its own benchmark strengths, such as a Passmark data compression score of 155164 and a single-thread score of 3644, these are not part of the head-to-head comparison, which the EPYC wins 6 to 0.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 9374F is the clear choice for any workload that demands maximum multi-core throughput and memory bandwidth. The data is unambiguous: it outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE by nearly 500% in all Cinebench tests. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and twelve-channel memory interface are built for heavy server, virtualization, and content-creation tasks. The fact that it holds a 71st percentile ranking among all CPUs, while having a similar average score to the Ryzen, underscores that its benchmark profile is heavily weighted toward these high-core-count workloads. Anyone building a system for this purpose should select the EPYC 9374F.

The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is the appropriate choice for a compact, low-power desktop system where integrated graphics are a requirement and efficiency is paramount. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the EPYC’s 320 W, and its Radeon 740M GPU eliminates the need for a discrete graphics card. While it is not competitive with the EPYC in raw compute, its average benchmark score is almost identical, suggesting that in a mix of everyday and light-threaded tasks, it performs adequately. The data supports its use in a system that prioritizes a small footprint, low noise, and minimal power draw over absolute performance.