AMD EPYC 9374F vs AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G. The database records 6 wins for the EPYC 9374F and 0 wins for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 versus 12,359 for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, a 464% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: 29,276 versus 5,190, also a 464.1% difference.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G win any single-core test?

A: No. The EPYC 9374F leads all single-core benchmarks as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9,841 against 1,744, a 464.3% delta. The R15 single-core test shows 991 versus 175, a 466.3% gap.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has 4 cores and 8 threads. Both use the Zen 4 architecture, but the EPYC is built on the Genoa codename while the Ryzen 3 uses Phoenix2.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory. However, the memory bus configuration differs: the EPYC 9374F uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G uses dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor against all CPUs?

A: Both processors sit at the 71st percentile in the database. The EPYC 9374F has an average benchmark score of 17,693, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G averages 17,278.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9374F and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G share the same Zen 4 microarchitecture but diverge sharply in implementation. The EPYC 9374F comes from the EPYC 9004 series with the Genoa codename, targeting the server and workstation segment. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G belongs to the 8000 series with the Phoenix2 codename, aimed at desktop use.

Manufacturing processes differ. The EPYC 9374F uses a 5 nm process node at TSMC with 52,560 million transistors spread across 8x 72 mm² dies. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G uses a 4 nm process node, also at TSMC, with 20,900 million transistors on a single 137 mm² die. The smaller process node gives the Ryzen 3 a density advantage per die, but the EPYC compensates with a massive multi-die design.

Cache hierarchies show a stark contrast. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache differs enormously: the EPYC 9374F has 256 MB shared, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has only 8 MB shared. That 248 MB difference in L3 capacity directly supports the EPYC's server-oriented workloads with large working sets.

Memory architecture follows the same split. The EPYC 9374F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s peak bandwidth. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G supports dual-channel DDR5 with 83.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's memory subsystem is built for sustained high-throughput access across many cores.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC 9374F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC offers nearly ten times the lane count and a newer generation, which matters for expansion in server environments.

Sockets and physical platforms are incompatible. The EPYC 9374F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G uses AMD Socket AM5. This means the two processors cannot be swapped into the same motherboard.

The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G includes integrated graphics in the form of Radeon 740M. The EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server processors where discrete GPUs or no display output is expected.

Power envelopes reflect their roles. The EPYC 9374F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has a TDP of 65 watts. The EPYC's higher power budget enables its 32 cores to run at sustained clocks.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The EPYC 9374F has a base clock of 3.85 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has a lower base clock of 3.40 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Ryzen 3 can reach higher single-core burst speeds, yet the EPYC still wins all single-core benchmarks in the database.

Release timing differs. The EPYC 9374F launched on 2022-11-09, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G launched on 2024-04-15. Both remain in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head comparisons, all favoring the AMD EPYC 9374F. The smallest margin is 464% and the largest is 466.3%, so the results are remarkably consistent across different Cinebench versions.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 7,026 against 1,245 for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, a 464.3% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows 991 versus 175, which is a 466.3% delta. This is the largest percentage gap among all recorded tests.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core results are 29,276 for the EPYC versus 5,190 for the Ryzen 3, a 464.1% difference. Single-core results are 4,133 versus 732, a 464.6% gap. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests the performance ratio is stable regardless of test version.

Cinebench R23, the most commonly cited modern benchmark, shows the same story. Multi-core scores are 69,707 versus 12,359, a 464% delta. Single-core scores are 9,841 versus 1,744, a 464.3% delta. The EPYC maintains its advantage across both threaded and single-threaded workloads.

The single-core results deserve extra attention. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 4.30 GHz for the EPYC 9374F. Despite that clock disadvantage, the EPYC still leads single-core Cinebench by roughly 464%. This indicates that the EPYC's architecture, likely including its larger L3 cache and memory subsystem, delivers superior per-thread performance in these tests.

The multi-core results are dominated by core count. The EPYC 9374F has 32 cores versus 4 cores for the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, an 8x difference. The benchmark deltas hover around 464%, which roughly aligns with the core ratio when accounting for the EPYC's higher base clock and shared cache advantages.

No benchmark in the database shows the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G winning. The wins count is 6 for the EPYC and 0 for the Ryzen 3. This is a clean sweep, with no test where the desktop part closes the gap.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9374F | AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Series | EPYC 9004 series | 8000 series |

| Cores | 32 | 4 |

| Threads | 64 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.85 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 320 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Genoa | Phoenix2 |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 52,560 million | 20,900 million |

| Die Size | 8x 72 mm² | 137 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 83.2 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 14 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon 740M |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2024-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $4850 | Not available |

The specification table reveals a processor designed for scale versus one designed for efficiency. The EPYC 9374F has 8 times the cores and threads, 32 times the L3 cache, and over 5 times the memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G counters with a smaller process node, higher boost clock, and integrated graphics.

Both processors share the Zen 4 architecture, the same L1 and L2 per-core cache sizes, DDR5 memory support, ECC memory support, and locked multipliers. Both come from AMD and use TSMC as the foundry. The production status for both is active.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear segmentation. The AMD EPYC 9374F is the dominant performer in every recorded benchmark, winning all six head-to-head tests with margins between 464% and 466.3%. This processor is built for server and workstation workloads where multi-core throughput and massive memory bandwidth are primary requirements. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and twelve-channel memory interface are all oriented toward sustained parallel processing.

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G serves a different purpose. With 4 cores, 8 threads, 8 MB L3 cache, and dual-channel memory, it is a desktop part. Its higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz does not translate into a single-core win in the database, but its 65 watt TDP and integrated Radeon 740M graphics make it suitable for compact desktop systems where power efficiency and onboard display output matter.

For buyers needing maximum compute density, the EPYC 9374F is the only choice in this comparison. Its benchmark scores are roughly 5.6 times higher across the board. The launch MSRP of $4850 reflects its server positioning. For desktop users who prioritize lower power consumption, a smaller platform, and integrated graphics, the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is the functional option, though it cannot match the EPYC on raw performance.

The database placement puts both processors at the 71st percentile against all CPUs, but this is misleading. The EPYC 9374F averages 17,693 across its benchmark set, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G averages 17,278. Their nearest rivals tell different stories. The EPYC 9374F sits within 0.4% of Intel Core i7-1255U, Intel Core i3-13100F, Intel Core i3-14100T, and AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE. The Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G sits within 0.6% of Intel Core i5-12450H, AMD Ryzen 3 210, AMD Ryzen 5 4500, and Intel Core i5-11400F.

The verdict is simple. Server and workstation buyers should pick the EPYC 9374F for its decisive benchmark advantage. Desktop builders who need a low-power processor with integrated graphics should pick the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, but they should not expect competitive performance against the EPYC in any recorded test.