AMD EPYC 9474F vs AMD Ryzen 5 6600H Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 9474F across every shared benchmark test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9474F scores 8,748 against the Ryzen 5 6600H's 1,681.5, a gap of 80.8 percent. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: the EPYC reaches 1,234 while the Ryzen manages 234, an 81 percent deficit for the mobile chip. These are not close contests by any measure.

Cinebench R23 tells an even more lopsided story. The EPYC 9474F posts 86,790 in multi-core, while the Ryzen 5 6600H records 10,322, meaning the server processor leads by 88.1 percent. In single-core R23, the EPYC scores 12,252 versus 1,458 for the Ryzen, again an 88.1 percent advantage. The consistency of that delta across both R23 tests suggests the EPYC's per-core efficiency and its massive core count combine to deliver a uniform lead.

Looking at the broader database percentiles, both chips sit close in overall standing: the Ryzen 5 6600H ranks at the 78th percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 9474F sits at the 77th. Their average benchmark scores are similarly near each other, with the Ryzen at 25,550 and the EPYC at 25,103. That near parity in aggregate metrics masks the extreme divergence in workload-specific results. The Ryzen's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon D-2752TER at 25,530 (0.1 percent ahead), the AMD Ryzen 7 5700 at 25,517 (0.1 percent ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 7640U at 25,485 (0.3 percent ahead). The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS at 25,147 (0.2 percent behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 6800H at 25,201 (0.4 percent behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F at 25,005 (0.4 percent ahead). The database places these two chips in overlapping performance neighborhoods when averaging across all tests, but the head-to-head results reveal why that average can mislead.

The EPYC 9474F wins all four head-to-head comparisons. There are zero wins for the Ryzen 5 6600H in the shared test suite. Notably, the EPYC's benchmark list includes additional tests not present for the Ryzen: Cinebench R20 multi-core at 36,451 and R20 single-core at 5,145. The Ryzen 5 6600H, by contrast, has several PassMark and Geekbench entries that the EPYC lacks, including Geekbench multi-core at 7,444, single-core at 1,566, and a passmark_multithread score of 18,669. Because the database does not record matching runs for these tests on both processors, direct comparison is limited to the four Cinebench results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD families and design philosophies. The Ryzen 5 6600H belongs to the 6000 series mobile lineup, built on Zen 3+ architecture with the codename Rembrandt. The EPYC 9474F is part of the EPYC 9004 series, using Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa. The node process differs: the Ryzen uses a 6 nm TSMC fabrication, while the EPYC is on a 5 nm TSMC process. That smaller node, combined with a newer architecture generation, helps explain the EPYC's per-core performance advantage in the benchmark data.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The Ryzen 5 6600H has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 9474F packs 48 cores and 96 threads. That eightfold core difference is the primary driver of the multi-core benchmark deltas. The cache hierarchy also scales with the core count. Both chips share 64 KB of L1 per core, but the Ryzen has 512 KB of L2 per core while the EPYC doubles that to 1 MB per core. The L3 cache tells a similar story: the Ryzen has 16 MB shared, while the EPYC has 256 MB shared. A 16-fold difference in L3 capacity gives the EPYC a substantial advantage for workloads that repeatedly access large working sets.

The EPYC's transistor count is listed at 52,560 million, with a die size described as 8x 72 mm². The Ryzen's transistor count is not recorded, but its die size is 208 mm². These figures reflect the fundamentally different packaging and multi-chiplet approach of the server part versus the monolithic mobile design. The EPYC's eight dies, each 72 mm², allow for the massive core count and cache pool.

Memory architecture differs as well. Both support DDR5, but the Ryzen uses a dual-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. That bandwidth gap matters for throughput-oriented server workloads. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. PCIe connectivity is another separator: the Ryzen offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The integrated graphics situation is one-sided: the Ryzen 5 6600H includes a Radeon 660M iGPU, while the EPYC has no integrated graphics at all.

The sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP7, typically found in laptops, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5 for server platforms. The market segments confirm the intended use cases: mobile for the Ryzen, server/workstation for the EPYC. The EPYC's release date is recorded as 2022-11-09, while the Ryzen's release date is not in the database. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. For heavily threaded, multi-core rendering or compute tasks, the EPYC 9474F is the overwhelming choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 86,790 versus the Ryzen's 10,322 represents an 88.1 percent lead, and the R15 multi-core result of 8,748 versus 1,681.5 is an 80.8 percent advantage. If the workload is batch rendering, scientific simulation, or any process that scales across many cores, the EPYC delivers several times the throughput.

For single-core tasks, the EPYC still wins decisively in the recorded tests. The R15 single-core score of 1,234 versus 234 is an 81 percent gap, and the R23 single-core score of 12,252 versus 1,458 is an 88.1 percent gap. This is notable because single-core performance typically favors higher clock speeds, and the Ryzen has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz against the EPYC's 4.10 GHz. Yet the newer Zen 4 architecture and the 5 nm node give the EPYC a per-core efficiency edge that overcomes the clock disadvantage.

The Ryzen 5 6600H does have advantages that are not captured in the head-to-head benchmarks. It includes integrated graphics, which the EPYC lacks entirely. It draws substantially less power, with a TDP of 45 watts against the EPYC's 360 watts. The Socket FP7 platform is designed for mobile systems, so the Ryzen is the only one of the two that can appear in a laptop. The EPYC's 360-watt TDP and SP5 socket require a server chassis with robust cooling and power delivery.

The database's percentile rankings place both chips within a few points of each other, but that aggregate view obscures the workload-specific reality. The Ryzen 5 6600H's nearest rivals are other mobile and mid-range desktop parts, while the EPYC's nearest rivals include mobile chips like the Ryzen 7 7735HS and Ryzen 7 6800H. The EPYC's average benchmark score of 25,103 is actually slightly lower than the Ryzen's 25,550, yet in every direct comparison the EPYC wins by massive margins. This suggests the EPYC's benchmark profile is dominated by tests that do not appear in the shared suite, pulling its average down relative to the Ryzen.

For a user who needs a processor in a portable machine, the Ryzen 5 6600H is the only viable option between these two. For a user building a server or workstation where power and space are not constraints, the EPYC 9474F is the superior processor in every measured dimension. The verdict is not about which is "better" in the abstract; it is about matching the chip to the platform and workload.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 6 for the Ryzen versus 48 for the EPYC. Thread count: 12 versus 96. Base clock: 3.30 GHz for the Ryzen versus 3.60 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clock: 4.50 GHz for the Ryzen versus 4.10 GHz for the EPYC. TDP: 45 watts versus 360 watts. Socket: AMD Socket FP7 versus AMD Socket SP5. Architecture: Zen 3+ versus Zen 4. Codename: Rembrandt versus Genoa. Process node: 6 nm versus 5 nm, both TSMC.

L2 cache per core: 512 KB for the Ryzen versus 1 MB for the EPYC. L3 cache: 16 MB shared versus 256 MB shared. Memory bus: dual-channel versus twelve-channel. Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s. ECC support: false versus true. PCIe: Gen 4 with 20 lanes versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 660M present versus none. Market segment: mobile versus server/workstation. Part numbers also differ: 100-000000546100-000000562 for the Ryzen and 100-100000788 for the EPYC. The EPYC has a recorded launch MSRP of $6780; the Ryzen has no launch MSRP in the database. The EPYC's transistor count of 52,560 million and die size of 8x 72 mm² have no equivalents in the Ryzen's record, which lists 208 mm² die size and no transistor count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 5 6600H has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9474F scores 86,790 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ryzen 5 6600H scores 10,322, giving the EPYC an 88.1 percent lead.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 6600H have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 5 6600H includes a Radeon 660M integrated GPU. The EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Ryzen 5 6600H supports 76.8 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus, while the EPYC 9474F supports 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 9474F supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen 5 6600H does not.

Q: How do the TDP ratings compare?

A: The Ryzen 5 6600H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the EPYC 9474F has a TDP of 360 watts.

Q: What are the boost clocks for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 5 6600H boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the EPYC 9474F boosts to 4.10 GHz. Despite the lower boost clock, the EPYC wins all single-core benchmark comparisons in the database.