AMD EPYC 9374F vs AMD Ryzen 5 4500 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database, with victory margins that range from substantial to overwhelming. Across the eight recorded benchmark tests, the EPYC 9374F takes all eight wins, while the Ryzen 5 4500 records zero.

The most dramatic separation appears in multi-core Cinebench workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 69,707 against the Ryzen 5 4500's 13,677, a delta of 409.7%. That pattern repeats almost identically across the other multi-core Cinebench versions: R15 multi-core shows 7,026 versus 1,378 (409.9% delta), and R20 multi-core shows 29,276 versus 5,744 (409.7% delta). The consistency of that roughly 410% gap across three different Cinebench versions indicates a stable multi-threaded performance advantage, not a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core Cinebench results tell a similar story, though the raw scores are lower. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 9374F posts 991 versus 194, a 410.8% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 4,133 versus 810 (410.2% delta), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 9,841 versus 1,930 (409.9% delta). The fact that even single-threaded performance is roughly five times higher is notable, because single-core tests typically compress architectural differences. Here, the Zen 4 clock advantage and IPC gain over Zen 2 produce a consistent five-fold gap.

Geekbench results narrow the margin somewhat but still favor the EPYC 9374F decisively. In Geekbench multi-core, the EPYC scores 18,263 against 7,005, a 160.7% delta. In Geekbench single-core, the gap shrinks to 54.9%, with scores of 2,306 versus 1,489. That single-core Geekbench number is the closest the two processors come in any test, yet it still represents a clear EPYC victory. The multi-core Geekbench delta is lower than the Cinebench deltas because Geekbench's workload mix does not scale as purely with core count and memory bandwidth.

Looking at the broader database context, both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, but their average benchmark scores differ slightly. The EPYC 9374F averages 17,693, while the Ryzen 5 4500 averages 17,333. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1255U (0.2% ahead), Intel Core i3-13100F (0.2% ahead), and Intel Core i3-14100T (0.3% ahead). The Ryzen 5 4500's nearest rivals include the Intel Core 7 150U (0.4% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.3% behind). These nearest-rival comparisons confirm that the EPYC's raw benchmark average is competitive with mainstream mobile and desktop chips, despite being a server part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9374F wins every single-core test in the database. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 2,306 versus 1,489 for the Ryzen 5 4500, a 54.9% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 9,841 versus 1,930, a 409.9% delta.

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

A: The EPYC 9374F leads by roughly 410% across all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23). In Geekbench multi-core, the lead is smaller but still substantial at 160.7%.

Q: Do both processors belong to the same architecture generation?

A: No. The EPYC 9374F uses Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process, while the Ryzen 5 4500 uses Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the EPYC is built on a more advanced node.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: Only the AMD EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 memory. It also features a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 4500 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 4500 has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9374F does not. This is consistent with their market positions: the Ryzen 5 is a desktop part, while the EPYC is a server/workstation processor.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC 9374F has 32 cores and 64 threads. The Ryzen 5 4500 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC has more than five times the core count and thread count of the Ryzen 5.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational and fundamental. The EPYC 9374F is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, while the Ryzen 5 4500 uses Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Renoir. The manufacturing process difference is significant: the EPYC uses a 5 nm node, while the Ryzen 5 uses a 7 nm node, both from TSMC.

Transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The EPYC 9374F packs 52,560 million transistors across a die design of 8x 72 mm². The Ryzen 5 4500 has 9,800 million transistors on a single 156 mm² die. That is a 5.4x transistor advantage for the EPYC, which aligns with its far larger core count and cache capacity.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both processors share the same 64 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the EPYC has 1 MB per core, while the Ryzen 5 has 512 KB per core. The L3 cache gap is enormous: the EPYC has 256 MB shared, while the Ryzen 5 has only 8 MB shared. That 32x difference in L3 capacity is one of the largest architectural separations between any two processors in the database.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC 9374F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 4500 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 does not. PCIe support differs as well: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Ryzen 5 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Neither processor includes integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU for display output. The EPYC targets the server/workstation segment, while the Ryzen 5 targets the desktop segment. The EPYC's production status is active, and so is the Ryzen 5's, but their release dates differ: the EPYC launched in November 2022, while the Ryzen 5 launched in April 2022.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts in nearly every measurable category. Core count: 32 versus 6. Threads: 64 versus 12. Base clock: 3.85 GHz versus 3.60 GHz. Boost clock: 4.30 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. The EPYC leads in both clock speeds despite having far more cores, which is unusual and reflects the high-performance binning of the 9374F SKU.

Thermal design power differs by a factor of nearly five: the EPYC 9374F has a TDP of 320 watts, while the Ryzen 5 4500 has a TDP of 65 watts. This power envelope is a direct consequence of the core count and clock speeds, and it dictates the cooling and platform requirements for each processor.

Socket compatibility is completely different. The EPYC 9374F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Ryzen 5 4500 uses AMD Socket AM4. These are not interchangeable platforms. The EPYC's market segment is server/workstation, while the Ryzen 5 is a desktop part. The EPYC is not multiplier-unlocked, while the Ryzen 5 is multiplier-unlocked.

Memory support diverges completely: DDR5 with twelve channels for the EPYC, DDR4 with dual channels for the Ryzen 5. The EPYC supports ECC memory, the Ryzen 5 does not. PCIe generation and lane count also differ: Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The launch MSRP differs by a wide margin: the EPYC 9374F launched at $4,850, while the Ryzen 5 4500 launched at $129. This pricing gap reflects the target markets: the EPYC is a dual-socket-capable server processor with massive memory bandwidth and cache, while the Ryzen 5 is a mainstream desktop chip.

Part numbers differ as well: the EPYC 9374F carries part number 100-100000792, while the Ryzen 5 4500 carries part number 100-000000xxx. Both are currently in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9374F wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database, so its use cases are broad. The 410% multi-core Cinebench advantage makes it the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads like rendering, simulation, and scientific computing. The 160.7% Geekbench multi-core lead reinforces that conclusion. The EPYC's 256 MB L3 cache and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are designed for data-center workloads where large datasets must stay close to the cores.

The EPYC's single-core wins, while smaller in percentage terms, are still decisive. The 54.9% Geekbench single-core advantage and the roughly 410% Cinebench single-core advantage mean that even lightly threaded tasks run faster on the EPYC. This is relevant for workloads that alternate between single-threaded and multi-threaded phases, such as large database queries or complex financial models.

The Ryzen 5 4500 does not win any benchmark category in this comparison. However, its strengths are contextual. The 65 watt TDP and AM4 socket make it suitable for compact desktop builds where power draw and platform cost are primary constraints. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which is not possible on the EPYC. The Ryzen 5's DDR4 support means it can use existing memory platforms, avoiding a platform migration cost.

The Ryzen 5 4500's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core 7 150U (0.4% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (0.3% behind), which places it in a competitive desktop mainstream tier. The EPYC 9374F's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-1255U (0.2% ahead) and Intel Core i3-13100F (0.2% ahead), which is a surprising grouping for a server processor and reflects the fact that its average benchmark score is comparable to efficient mobile and budget desktop parts.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD EPYC 9374F is the superior processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all eight head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 54.9% to 410.8%. The EPYC's 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB L3 cache, and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth produce performance that the Ryzen 5 4500 cannot approach in any workload category recorded.

The Ryzen 5 4500 should be chosen by builders who prioritize platform compatibility, low power draw, and overclocking flexibility. Its 65 watt TDP, AM4 socket, and unlocked multiplier make it a practical desktop choice for mainstream builds. Its 6 cores and 12 threads are sufficient for common desktop tasks, and its DDR4 support allows reuse of existing memory.

The EPYC 9374F should be chosen for server and workstation deployments where raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, and cache capacity are paramount. The 320 watt TDP and SP5 socket require a server-class platform, and the $4,850 launch MSRP places it firmly in the enterprise segment. The data shows that for multi-threaded workloads, the EPYC delivers roughly five times the Cinebench performance of the Ryzen 5, which justifies the platform investment for organizations running sustained high-intensity compute.

The percentile data places both processors at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, but that metric obscures the massive performance gap between them. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 17,693 is only 2.1% higher than the Ryzen 5's 17,333, yet the head-to-head tests reveal deltas of 400% or more. This discrepancy exists because the Ryzen 5's benchmark suite includes a wider range of tests, including Passmark sub-tests where its scores are proportionally less disadvantaged. The head-to-head Cinebench and Geekbench results are the more reliable indicators of relative performance between these two specific processors.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload scale and platform requirements. If the workload fits within 6 cores and 12 threads, the Ryzen 5 4500 is a functional desktop processor. If the workload demands 32 cores, 64 threads, and server-class memory bandwidth, the EPYC 9374F is the only choice in this comparison. There is no benchmark evidence in the database that supports selecting the Ryzen 5 for raw performance reasons.