AMD EPYC 9474F vs AMD Ryzen 5 7640U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 9474F scores 12,252 points versus 2,532 for the Ryzen 5 7640U. The EPYC leads by 79.3% in this test.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 9474F records 36,451 points, while the Ryzen 5 7640U scores 7,533. The EPYC is ahead by 79.3% in this workload.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each CPU?

A: The Ryzen 5 7640U has 6 cores and 12 threads. The EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The EPYC 9474F supports twelve-channel memory, whereas the Ryzen 5 7640U supports dual-channel memory.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Ryzen 5 7640U includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU. The EPYC 9474F does not have integrated graphics.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 5 7640U is built on a 4 nm process. The EPYC 9474F uses a 5 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Zen 4 architecture but diverge sharply in every physical and platform characteristic. The Ryzen 5 7640U comes from the Phoenix family, built on a 4 nm TSMC node with 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die. The EPYC 9474F, codenamed Genoa, uses a 5 nm TSMC process with 52,560 million transistors spread across 8x 72 mm² chiplets. The transistor count difference is substantial: the EPYC packs more than double the transistor budget of the Ryzen.

Cache hierarchies mirror the core count disparity. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 pool differs enormously. The Ryzen 5 7640U has 16 MB of shared L3, while the EPYC 9474F has 256 MB of shared L3. That is a 16-fold increase in last-level cache, directly benefiting the EPYC's 48-core workload handling.

Platform connectivity separates the two even further. The Ryzen 5 7640U uses AMD Socket FP8, a mobile socket, and provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The EPYC 9474F uses AMD Socket SP5, a server socket, and provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. Memory bandwidth scales with the socket: the Ryzen manages 89.6 GB/s over dual-channel DDR5, while the EPYC reaches 460.8 GB/s over twelve-channel DDR5. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's bandwidth is more than five times higher.

The Ryzen 5 7640U targets the mobile segment with a 15 W TDP, includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU, and was released on 2023-05-02. The EPYC 9474F targets server and workstation workloads with a 360 W TDP, has no integrated graphics, and was released on 2022-11-09. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice based on workload class. The EPYC 9474F dominates every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, winning all six recorded tests. For multi-threaded server tasks, the EPYC's 48 cores and 96 threads deliver 86,790 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 79.3% ahead of the Ryzen 5 7640U's 17,936 points. The EPYC also wins single-core tests by the same 79.3% margin, scoring 12,252 versus 2,532 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The Ryzen 5 7640U is clearly a mobile processor. Its 15 W TDP and integrated Radeon 760M graphics suit thin-and-light laptops where power efficiency matters more than raw throughput. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration still produces respectable scores: 2,532 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 17,936 in multi-core. The EPYC 9474F, with its 360 W TDP and no integrated graphics, is not designed for such systems.

The average benchmark scores place both chips near each other in the overall database ranking. The Ryzen 5 7640U has an average benchmark score of 25,485, while the EPYC 9474F averages 25,103. The Ryzen sits at the 78th percentile of all CPUs, and the EPYC at the 77th percentile. These averages are misleading, however, because the benchmark sets differ: the Ryzen includes PassMark tests and Geekbench scores, while the EPYC's recorded benchmarks are exclusively Cinebench tests.

The choice depends on the intended use. For a laptop processor that balances everyday performance with low power draw, the Ryzen 5 7640U is the appropriate selection. For a server or workstation processor that needs massive multi-threaded compute and high memory bandwidth, the EPYC 9474F is the answer. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $6780.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. The Ryzen 5 7640U has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 9474F has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks are close: 3.50 GHz for the Ryzen versus 3.60 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks favor the Ryzen, which reaches 4.90 GHz against the EPYC's 4.10 GHz.

The TDP gap is extreme. The Ryzen 5 7640U draws 15 W, while the EPYC 9474F draws 360 W. This 24-fold difference reflects the mobile versus server positioning. The sockets differ accordingly: AMD Socket FP8 for the Ryzen and AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC.

Process nodes and die sizes diverge. The Ryzen uses a 4 nm process with a 178 mm² die. The EPYC uses a 5 nm process with 8x 72 mm² chiplets. Transistor counts follow: 25,000 million for the Ryzen and 52,560 million for the EPYC.

Cache and memory configurations separate the two even further. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 1 MB L2 per core, but the shared L3 is 16 MB on the Ryzen versus 256 MB on the EPYC. The Ryzen supports dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Ryzen 5 7640U has PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The EPYC 9474F has PCIe Gen 5 with 128 CPU lanes. The Ryzen includes a Radeon 760M integrated GPU; the EPYC has none. The Ryzen is a mobile part, released on 2023-05-02. The EPYC is a server/workstation part, released on 2022-11-09. The Ryzen has no launch MSRP recorded, while the EPYC lists $6780.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the EPYC 9474F across all six Cinebench tests. The margin is identical at 79.3% in every case, reflecting the consistent architectural advantage of the larger chip.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 8,748 against the Ryzen's 1,807. The EPYC's 48 cores overwhelm the Ryzen's 6 cores in this heavily threaded workload. The single-core R15 test tells a different story: the EPYC scores 1,234 versus 255 for the Ryzen. This is notable because the Ryzen actually has a higher boost clock at 4.90 GHz versus 4.10 GHz, yet the EPYC still wins by the same 79.3% margin. The EPYC's larger L3 cache and higher base clock likely compensate for the Ryzen's clock advantage.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. The EPYC scores 36,451 in multi-core against the Ryzen's 7,533. In single-core, the EPYC records 5,145 points versus 1,063 for the Ryzen. The 79.3% delta remains constant, suggesting the performance ratio is stable across Cinebench versions.

Cinebench R23 confirms the trend with the largest absolute scores. The EPYC reaches 86,790 in multi-core, while the Ryzen manages 17,936. In single-core, the EPYC scores 12,252 against the Ryzen's 2,532. The EPYC's multi-core score is approximately 4.8 times higher than the Ryzen's, consistent with the 8-fold core count advantage diluted by the Ryzen's higher boost clock.

The Ryzen 5 7640U wins no head-to-head tests. Its strengths lie elsewhere: lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and a smaller physical footprint for mobile use. The benchmark data shows the EPYC 9474F as the definitive performance leader in every measured Cinebench workload. The Ryzen's average benchmark score of 25,485, which includes PassMark and Geekbench results, does not appear in the head-to-head set, so those results cannot be compared directly against the EPYC's Cinebench-only scores.