AMD EPYC 9474F vs AMD Ryzen 7 5825U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive sweep in favor of the AMD EPYC 9474F in every head-to-head comparison. The Ryzen 7 5825U does not claim a single win across the four shared tests. The most lopsided gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core scoring, where the EPYC 9474F reaches 86,790 versus the Ryzen 5825U's 10,152, a delta of 88.3%. This is not a subtle difference; it is a generational chasm in raw throughput capability.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. Cinebench R23 single-core results show the EPYC 9474F posts 12,252 points against 1,452 for the mobile chip, an 88.1% delta. Even Cinebench R15, a test suite that typically narrows gaps, shows the EPYC 9474F ahead by 79.9% with 8,748 points compared to 1,757 from the Ryzen chip. Even the single-core R15 result sees the EPYC 9474F up 81.2%, posting 1,234 versus 232. The data indicates that the EPYC's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.10 GHz, combined with its Zen 4 architecture, dominate even when core count is not a factor.

The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 7 5825U sits at 25,446, while the EPYC 9474F averages 25,103. The Ryzen 7 5825U holds a slight edge in this aggregate metric, a 0.1% delta versus its nearest rival, the Ryzen 7 7840U. The EPYC 9474F, however, sits at 77th percentile versus all CPUs, slightly below the Ryzen 7 5825U's 78th percentile. This seems counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but the average score is skewed by the large number of tests recorded for the Ryzen chip, including many PassMark workloads where it posts decent numbers. The EPYC's benchmark list is shorter, so its average is pulled by a smaller sample of heavy multi-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 86,790 points, which is 88.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen 7 5825U's 10,152 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: Does the Ryzen 7 5825U beat the EPYC 9474F in any shared benchmark test?

A: No. Across the four head-to-head benchmark comparisons (Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core, plus Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core), the EPYC 9474F wins all four with no wins recorded for the Ryzen 7 5825U.

Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9474F is ahead by 81.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (1,234 vs 232) and by 88.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core (12,252 vs 1,452).

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 7 5825U ranks in the 78th percentile versus all CPUs, and the EPYC 9474F ranks in the 77th percentile versus all CPUs.

Q: Which chip has a higher base clock speed?

A: The EPYC 9474F has a base clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Ryzen 7 5825U has a base clock of 2.00 GHz.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The EPYC 9474F contains 52,560 million transistors, whereas the Ryzen 7 5825U contains 10,700 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct design philosophies. The Ryzen 7 5825U, codenamed Barcelo, uses the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process. It is a mobile-focused part with 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC 9474F, codenamed Genoa, uses the newer Zen 4 architecture on a 5 nm process and scales to 48 cores and 96 threads. Both are manufactured by TSMC, but the physical implementation differs dramatically.

The Ryzen 7 5825U packs 10,700 million transistors into a die size of 180 mm². The EPYC 9474F spreads its 52,560 million transistors across 8 dies, each measuring 72 mm². That is a stark contrast in packaging and design approach. The EPYC's chiplet design allows for massive core counts and a shared L3 cache of 256 MB, compared to the Ryzen 7 5825U's 16 MB shared L3 cache. Per-core L2 cache also differs: the Ryzen 7 5825U has 512 KB per core, while the EPYC 9474F doubles that to 1 MB per core. L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core.

Memory architecture reinforces the divide. The Ryzen 7 5825U supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 9474F supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, but the bandwidth difference is enormous. PCIe connectivity is equally lopsided: the Ryzen 7 5825U offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the EPYC 9474F offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The Ryzen 7 5825U includes integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics; the EPYC 9474F has no integrated graphics.

The production status for both is Active. The Ryzen 7 5825U was released on 2022-01-05, and the EPYC 9474F followed on 2022-11-09. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The sockets are incompatible: AMD Socket FP6 for the Ryzen 7 5825U and AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC 9474F.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: these are not competing products. The EPYC 9474F wins every head-to-head benchmark by overwhelming margins, ranging from 79.9% to 88.3%. If the task is raw multi-threaded processing power, the EPYC 9474F is the clear choice based on the recorded Cinebench results.

The Ryzen 7 5825U, however, has its own merits within the context of the database. Its average benchmark score of 25,446 slightly exceeds the EPYC 9474F's 25,103, and it holds a marginally higher percentile ranking (78 vs 77). Its nearest rivals include the Ryzen 7 7840U with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i7-11700KF with a 0.1% delta, and the Ryzen 5 7640U with a -0.2% delta. The EPYC 9474F's nearest rivals are mobile processors as well, including the Ryzen 7 7735HS at -0.2% and the Ryzen 7 6800H at -0.4%. This indicates the EPYC 9474F's aggregate score is comparable to high-end mobile chips, despite its server-class specifications.

Who should pick which? The EPYC 9474F is designed for server and workstation workloads, with 48 cores, 96 threads, twelve-channel DDR5 memory, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Ryzen 7 5825U is a mobile processor with 8 cores and 16 threads, DDR4 support, and integrated graphics. The benchmark data shows the EPYC 9474F is overwhelmingly faster in multi-threaded rendering tasks. The Ryzen 7 5825U is for power-conscious mobile systems, indicated by its 15 W TDP versus the EPYC's 360 W TDP. The EPYC 9474F has a launch MSRP of $6780.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ across nearly every major specification field. The Ryzen 7 5825U has 8 cores and 16 threads; the EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. The base clock is 2.00 GHz for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 3.60 GHz for the EPYC 9474F. Boost clock is 4.50 GHz for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 4.10 GHz for the EPYC 9474F. TDP is 15 W versus 360 W.

The Ryzen 7 5825U uses AMD Socket FP6, while the EPYC 9474F uses AMD Socket SP5. Architecture is Zen 3 for the Ryzen 7 5825U and Zen 4 for the EPYC 9474F. The process node is 7 nm for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 5 nm for the EPYC 9474F. Transistor count is 10,700 million for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 52,560 million for the EPYC 9474F. Die size is 180 mm² for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 8x 72 mm² for the EPYC 9474F.

Cache structures differ: L2 cache is 512 KB per core for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 1 MB per core for the EPYC 9474F. L3 cache is 16 MB shared versus 256 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 for the Ryzen 7 5825U and DDR5 for the EPYC 9474F. The memory bus is dual-channel versus twelve-channel. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 3 with 16 lanes versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes. The Ryzen 7 5825U has integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics; the EPYC 9474F has none. Release dates are 2022-01-05 for the Ryzen 7 5825U and 2022-11-09 for the EPYC 9474F. The part numbers are 100-000000580 and 100-100000788.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head data, the EPYC 9474F wins every measured comparison. It dominates Cinebench R15 multi-core (8,748 vs 1,757), Cinebench R15 single-core (1,234 vs 232), Cinebench R23 multi-core (86,790 vs 10,152), and Cinebench R23 single-core (12,252 vs 1,452). There is no benchmark in the shared set where the Ryzen 7 5825U comes out ahead.

The Ryzen 7 5825U, however, has a higher average benchmark score of 25,446 compared to the EPYC 9474F's 25,103. This is due to the broader set of PassMark tests recorded for the Ryzen 7 5825U, including data compression (221,938), floating point math (38,482), and integer math (72,577). These scores contribute to its 78th percentile ranking. The EPYC 9474F has a shorter benchmark list, but its Cinebench results are far above the Ryzen 7 5825U's.

The use-case split is clear. The EPYC 9474F is for server and workstation environments where multi-threaded rendering, large-scale virtualization, and memory bandwidth are critical. The Ryzen 7 5825U is for mobile devices where power consumption and integrated graphics matter. The data supports the conclusion that the EPYC 9474F is the performance king in this comparison, while the Ryzen 7 5825U is a capable mobile processor with a slightly higher aggregate benchmark score. The EPYC 9474F's nearest rivals in the database are mobile chips, which suggests the average score metric does not fully capture its multi-threaded dominance.