EPYC 7643 vs Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
19.90
EPYC 7643
2021
48 cores / 96 threads, 225 Watt
47.88
+141%

EPYC 7643 outperforms Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 by a whopping 141% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking28039
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data6.37
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 9AMD EPYC
Power efficiency28.9720.14
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date30 September 2019 (5 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$4,995

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores12 (Dodeca-Core)48 (Octatetraconta-Core)
Threads2496
Base clock speed3.1 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz3.6 GHz
Multiplierno data23
L1 cache768 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache6 MB512 KB (per core)
L3 cache64 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 12 nm7 nm+
Die sizeno data8x 81 mm2
Number of transistorsno data33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration1 (Uniprocessor)2
SocketSocket AM4SP3
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt225 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-3200DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 GB/s204.795 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643.

PCIe versionno data4.0
PCI Express lanesno data128

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 19.90
EPYC 7643 47.88
+141%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 31616
EPYC 7643 76050
+141%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 1679
+35.7%
EPYC 7643 1237

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 9099
EPYC 7643 11421
+25.5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.90 47.88
Recency 30 September 2019 15 March 2021
Physical cores 12 48
Threads 24 96
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 225 Watt

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 has 246.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7643, on the other hand, has a 140.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.

The EPYC 7643 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7643 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 and EPYC 7643, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
AMD EPYC 7643
EPYC 7643

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.9 52 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.2 232 votes

Rate EPYC 7643 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 or EPYC 7643, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.