AMD EPYC 9474F vs AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS and AMD EPYC 9474F compare?

A: The Ryzen 7 7735HS has an average benchmark score of 25147, while the EPYC 9474F scores 25103. The EPYC trails by 0.2% in this aggregate metric, placing both processors at the 77th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which processor wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, and by how much?

A: The EPYC 9474F wins decisively with a score of 86790 versus the Ryzen 7 7735HS’s 13106. This represents an 84.9% advantage for the EPYC in that specific workload.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Ryzen 7 7735HS beats the EPYC 9474F?

A: In the head-to-head benchmark set provided, the EPYC 9474F wins all four tests. The Ryzen 7 7735HS records zero wins, while the EPYC takes four victories across single-core and multi-core Cinebench R15 and R23 workloads.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9474F scores 12252 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Ryzen 7 7735HS scores 1546. The EPYC leads by 87.4%, which is the largest delta recorded in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do the core and thread counts differ between the two processors?

A: The Ryzen 7 7735HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads — six times the core count and six times the thread count of the mobile chip.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?

A: The Ryzen 7 7735HS supports dual-channel DDR5 with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 9474F supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s — exactly six times the memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data presents a starkly split use case. The AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS and AMD EPYC 9474F occupy completely different market segments, and the benchmark results reflect that separation clearly. The Ryzen 7 7735HS is a mobile processor with a 35W TDP, integrated Radeon 680M graphics, and a 77th percentile ranking. The EPYC 9474F is a server/workstation part with a 360W TDP, no integrated graphics, and the same 77th percentile ranking despite its dramatically higher core count.

For anyone needing raw multi-threaded compute — rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy server workloads — the EPYC 9474F is the only choice from this data. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 86790 is 6.6 times higher than the Ryzen’s 13106. The EPYC also wins every single-core test in the head-to-head set, with an 87.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Ryzen 7 7735HS, however, is not a loser in the broader context. Its average benchmark score of 25147 is essentially tied with the EPYC’s 25103 (0.2% difference), meaning that in the aggregate of all benchmark data, these two processors perform comparably despite their architectural differences. The Ryzen achieves this with far fewer cores, a much lower TDP, and integrated graphics — making it suitable for mobile or compact systems where power and space are constrained.

The practical verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 9474F is for server racks and workstation towers where performance per socket is paramount. The Ryzen 7 7735HS is for laptops and mini-PCs where efficiency and integrated graphics matter more than absolute throughput. Neither processor is a substitute for the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is one-sided in favor of the EPYC 9474F, which wins all four tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 8748 against the Ryzen’s 2153.4, a 75.4% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: EPYC at 1234 versus Ryzen at 248, a 79.9% margin.

Moving to R23, the gap widens. Multi-core R23 sees the EPYC at 86790 and the Ryzen at 13106, an 84.9% difference. Single-core R23 is the most lopsided result: EPYC scores 12252, Ryzen scores 1546, giving the EPYC an 87.4% advantage.

The pattern is clear: the EPYC 9474F dominates in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. The margin grows with the more modern R23 test compared to R15, suggesting the EPYC’s architecture scales better with the newer benchmark’s demands. What is notable is that the single-core gap (79.9% in R15, 87.4% in R23) is nearly as large as the multi-core gap (75.4% in R15, 84.9% in R23). This indicates the EPYC’s per-core performance is itself superior, not just its core count.

Despite this sweep, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Ryzen 7 7735HS has an average score of 25147, slightly above the EPYC’s 25103. This is because the Ryzen’s benchmark suite includes many additional tests — 3DMark, Geekbench, PassMark — where the mobile chip’s performance profile differs. The EPYC’s benchmark list is limited to Cinebench tests, so its average is computed from a narrower set of workloads. The 0.2% delta in the Ryzen’s favor in the aggregate metric should not obscure the EPYC’s dominance in the head-to-head Cinebench results.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Ryzen 7 7735HS has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for the Ryzen versus 3.60 GHz for the EPYC, but boost clocks reverse the order: 4.75 GHz for the Ryzen versus 4.10 GHz for the EPYC.

TDP is a massive differentiator: 35W for the Ryzen versus 360W for the EPYC — a tenfold difference. The Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP7, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. Cache hierarchies diverge significantly: the Ryzen has 512 KB of L2 per core and 16 MB of shared L3, while the EPYC has 1 MB of L2 per core and 256 MB of shared L3 — 16 times the L3 capacity.

Memory support shows both support DDR5, but the channel configurations differ: dual-channel for the Ryzen versus twelve-channel for the EPYC. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s. PCIe generations also differ: Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the Ryzen versus Gen 5 with 128 lanes on the EPYC. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon 680M graphics; the EPYC has no integrated graphics.

The market segments are explicitly different: Mobile for the Ryzen, Server/Workstation for the EPYC. Release dates differ as well — the Ryzen launched on 2023-03-31, the EPYC on 2022-11-09. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $6780; the Ryzen has no listed launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap is fundamental. The Ryzen 7 7735HS uses Zen 3+ under the codename Rembrandt-R, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC with a die size of 210 mm². The EPYC 9474F uses Zen 4 under the codename Genoa, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC with a die configuration of 8x 72 mm².

The transistor count is a major differentiator: the EPYC has 52,560 million transistors across its eight chiplets, while the Ryzen’s transistor count is not listed. The process node shrink from 6 nm to 5 nm, combined with the Zen 3+ to Zen 4 architecture jump, explains much of the EPYC’s per-core performance advantage seen in the single-core benchmarks.

Cache architecture differs beyond total capacity. Both use 64 KB of L1 per core, but L2 is 512 KB per core on the Ryzen versus 1 MB per core on the EPYC. L3 is 16 MB shared on the Ryzen versus 256 MB shared on the EPYC. This 16-fold L3 difference is characteristic of server processors designed for large working sets in virtualization and database workloads.

The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bus versus the Ryzen’s dual-channel is a direct consequence of the server design goal: feeding 48 cores with data requires far more memory bandwidth. The 460.8 GB/s figure is exactly six times the Ryzen’s 76.8 GB/s, matching the sixfold core and thread count advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9474F wins in every head-to-head benchmark category provided. In Cinebench R15 and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC is ahead by margins ranging from 75.4% to 87.4%. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on sustained CPU throughput — video rendering, 3D modeling, scientific computation, or server-side processing.

The EPYC’s advantages extend beyond raw scores. Its 256 MB of L3 cache, twelve-channel memory bus, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes position it for data-intensive tasks like large in-memory databases, virtualization hosts, and high-performance computing clusters. The 48 cores and 96 threads provide massive parallelism for multi-threaded applications.

The Ryzen 7 7735HS wins in the context of its market segment, even though it loses the head-to-head benchmarks. Its 35W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the EPYC’s 360W TDP would be physically impossible to cool. The integrated Radeon 680M graphics means no discrete GPU is required for basic display output, which the EPYC cannot provide at all.

The Ryzen’s average benchmark score of 25147 versus the EPYC’s 25103 shows that in the broader benchmark universe — including 3DMark, Geekbench, and PassMark tests — the Ryzen holds its own. For single-threaded desktop tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light coding, the Ryzen’s 4.75 GHz boost clock provides responsive performance.

The data suggests a clear division: the EPYC 9474F for heavy compute and server roles, the Ryzen 7 7735HS for mobile and integrated systems. The 0.2% average score difference masks the fact that these processors are designed for entirely different environments and workloads. Each wins where its design goals align with the task at hand.