AMD EPYC 9374F vs AMD Ryzen 5 4600G Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data here is decisively one-sided. Across every shared benchmark in the head-to-head table, the AMD EPYC 9374F wins outright. The most lopsided margins come in the Cinebench suite, where the EPYC 9374F posts a 412.8% advantage in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, that translates to a score of 69,707 versus the Ryzen 5 4600G’s 13,593. The single-core gap is just as stark: the EPYC 9374F scores 9,841 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Ryzen 5 4600G manages 1,919 — a 412.8% delta. These are not incremental differences; they represent a fundamentally different performance class.

The single-core deltas are worth parsing carefully. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 9374F scores 991 versus 193 for the Ryzen 5 4600G, a 413.5% difference. That margin is unusual for single-threaded workloads, which typically show smaller gaps between generations. The explanation lies in the combination of a much higher base clock (3.85 GHz vs 3.70 GHz), a newer architecture (Zen 4 vs Zen 2), and the fact that the Ryzen 5 4600G’s single-core score here appears anomalously low relative to its multi-core numbers. The Geekbench single-core test tells a slightly more moderate story: 2,306 for the EPYC versus 1,460 for the Ryzen 5, a 57.9% gap. That is still a commanding lead, but it shows that the Ryzen 5’s single-thread performance is not entirely uncompetitive in absolute terms.

Moving to multi-core, the Geekbench test narrows the gap somewhat. The EPYC 9374F scores 18,263, while the Ryzen 5 4600G scores 6,637 — a 175.2% delta. This is smaller than the Cinebench margins because Geekbench’s workload scales differently with core counts and memory bandwidth. Still, 175% is a massive lead, and it reflects the EPYC’s 32 cores and 64 threads against the Ryzen 5’s 6 cores and 12 threads.

The Ryzen 5 4600G does have additional benchmarks in its own data set that the EPYC does not share — 3DMark tests, PassMark tests, and others — but the head-to-head table only includes the eight Cinebench and Geekbench tests, and the EPYC wins all eight. The win count is 8–0. There are no surprises here for anyone who understands the product positioning, but the magnitude of the margins is worth emphasizing: in every multi-core test, the EPYC is more than five times faster, and in most single-core tests, it is between 1.5 and 5 times faster.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9374F is dramatically ahead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 69,707 versus 13,593 for the Ryzen 5 4600G, a 412.8% delta. Geekbench multi-core shows a 175.2% lead (18,263 vs 6,637).

Q: Is the single-core performance gap as large as the multi-core gap?

A: It depends on the test. Cinebench R15 single-core shows a 413.5% delta (991 vs 193), while Geekbench single-core shows a much smaller 57.9% delta (2,306 vs 1,460). The Cinebench single-core result appears unusually skewed; Geekbench is likely more representative of real-world single-threaded workloads.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 4600G have any integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics. The EPYC 9374F has no integrated graphics at all, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What memory types do these CPUs support?

A: The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 4600G supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 does not.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 9374F offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen 5 4600G offers 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). This is a 6.4x difference in lane count and a full two-generational leap in PCIe standard.

Q: Are both CPUs currently in production?

A: Yes, both are listed as "Active" in production status. The EPYC 9374F was released on 2022-11-09, while the Ryzen 5 4600G was released on 2020-07-20.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9374F is built on Zen 4 architecture (codename Genoa), fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 52,560 million transistors across an 8x 72 mm² die configuration. The Ryzen 5 4600G uses Zen 2 architecture (codename Renoir), on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 9,800 million transistors on a single 156 mm² die. This is a generational leap in both node and design philosophy: the EPYC is a chiplet-based server part, while the Ryzen 5 is a monolithic APU with integrated graphics.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the EPYC versus 512 KB per core on the Ryzen 5. The L3 cache is the biggest differentiator: the EPYC has 256 MB shared L3, while the Ryzen 5 has just 8 MB shared. That is a 32x difference in L3 capacity, which heavily impacts workloads that fit within the cache hierarchy. The Ryzen 5’s smaller L3 is typical of the Renoir APU design, where die area is sacrificed to integrated graphics.

The EPYC 9374F supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 4600G supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus, delivering 51.2 GB/s. The EPYC also has ECC memory support; the Ryzen 5 does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Ryzen 5 provides 20 Gen 3 lanes. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the process difference (5 nm vs 7 nm) gives the EPYC a density and efficiency advantage that shows in its transistor count.

The EPYC’s cache configuration and memory bandwidth are clearly designed for server workloads — database processing, virtualization, and large-scale data analytics. The Ryzen 5’s smaller cache and dual-channel memory are typical for a mainstream desktop APU, where the priority is balanced performance with integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

This section highlights only the fields where the two CPUs differ:

• Cores: 32 (EPYC) vs 6 (Ryzen 5)
• Threads: 64 vs 12
• Base clock: 3.85 GHz vs 3.70 GHz
• Boost clock: 4.30 GHz vs 4.20 GHz
• TDP: 320 W vs 65 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP5 vs AMD Socket AM4
• Architecture: Zen 4 vs Zen 2
• Codename: Genoa vs Renoir
• Process node: 5 nm vs 7 nm
• Transistors: 52,560 million vs 9,800 million
• Die size: 8x 72 mm² vs 156 mm²
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core vs 512 KB per core
• L3 cache: 256 MB shared vs 8 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR5 vs DDR4
• Memory bus: Twelve-channel vs Dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s
• ECC memory: True vs False
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 lanes vs Gen 3, 20 lanes
• Integrated graphics: None vs Radeon Vega 7
• Market segment: Server/Workstation vs Desktop
• Release date: 2022-11-09 vs 2020-07-20
• Launch MSRP: $4850 vs $154
• Multiplier unlocked: False vs True

The TDP difference is stark: 320 W vs 65 W. This means the EPYC requires a server platform with substantial cooling and power delivery, while the Ryzen 5 can run on a standard desktop motherboard with a modest cooler. The socket difference (SP5 vs AM4) further underscores that these are not interchangeable platforms.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The EPYC 9374F wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with margins ranging from 57.9% (Geekbench single-core) to 412.8% (Cinebench multi-core and single-core tests). It offers 32 cores, 64 threads, 256 MB of L3 cache, DDR5 memory with twelve-channel bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. This is a server-class processor designed for maximum throughput in heavily threaded, memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads.

The Ryzen 5 4600G, by contrast, offers 6 cores, 12 threads, 8 MB of L3 cache, DDR4 dual-channel memory, and 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. It also includes Radeon Vega 7 integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. Its TDP of 65 W makes it a low-power desktop part, and its unlocked multiplier means it can be overclocked — something the EPYC cannot do.

Who should pick which? If the workload is multi-threaded, cache-sensitive, or memory-bandwidth-bound — think compiling large codebases, running multiple virtual machines, or processing massive datasets — the EPYC 9374F is the only rational choice. Its performance advantage is so large that any other consideration (power, cost, platform complexity) is secondary. The Ryzen 5 4600G is the choice for a desktop system where integrated graphics are needed, where the platform cost and power draw must stay low, and where the workload is light enough that 6 cores and 12 threads suffice. It is also the only one of the two that can be overclocked.

The average benchmark scores reflect this: the EPYC has an average score of 17,693, while the Ryzen 5 has 17,507 — nearly identical. But that average is skewed by the fact that the Ryzen 5 has many more benchmark entries, including PassMark and 3DMark tests that favor lower-power desktop parts. In the shared Cinebench and Geekbench tests, the EPYC is overwhelmingly faster.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9374F wins everywhere both CPUs are measured. In all eight head-to-head benchmarks — four Cinebench tests and two Geekbench tests — the EPYC takes the top spot. Its biggest wins are in multi-core workloads, where the 412.8% delta in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 shows a five-fold performance advantage. It also wins in single-core tests, though the margin varies widely from 57.9% (Geekbench) to 413.5% (Cinebench R15).

The Ryzen 5 4600G has no wins in the head-to-head data. However, it has strengths that the EPYC cannot match, based on its own specifications. It includes integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics, making it usable without a discrete GPU. It has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. Its 65 W TDP means it can be cooled by a modest air cooler and powered by a standard desktop power supply. Its AM4 socket is widely supported by consumer motherboards, and its DDR4 memory is more common and generally less expensive than DDR5. It also has a much lower launch MSRP of $154, though we will not dwell on pricing.

For a builder assembling a budget desktop or an office machine with light to moderate workloads, the Ryzen 5 4600G is the practical choice. For a server administrator provisioning a database server, a virtualization host, or a high-performance compute node, the EPYC 9374F is the only option that makes sense. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Ryzen 5 outperforms the EPYC in raw compute; it simply offers a different set of trade-offs — integrated graphics, lower power, overclocking, and a desktop-friendly platform — that the EPYC cannot provide.