
EPYC 7713
Popular choices:

EPYC 7763
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
EPYC 7713
2021Why buy it
- ✅Costs $830 less on MSRP ($7,060 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.8 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($7,060 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 225W instead of 280W, a 55W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7763 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (83,018 vs 84,440).
EPYC 7763
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +4.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($7,890 MSRP vs $7,060 MSRP).
- ❌24.4% higher power demand at 280W vs 225W.
EPYC 7713
2021EPYC 7763
2021Why buy it
- ✅Costs $830 less on MSRP ($7,060 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.8 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($7,060 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 225W instead of 280W, a 55W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +4.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7763 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (83,018 vs 84,440).
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($7,890 MSRP vs $7,060 MSRP).
- ❌24.4% higher power demand at 280W vs 225W.
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7763 better than EPYC 7713?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 195 FPS | 190 FPS |
| medium | 159 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 129 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 100 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 160 FPS | 156 FPS |
| medium | 125 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 97 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 72 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 39 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 267 FPS | 418 FPS |
| medium | 235 FPS | 367 FPS |
| high | 193 FPS | 299 FPS |
| ultra | 158 FPS | 234 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 219 FPS | 344 FPS |
| medium | 198 FPS | 310 FPS |
| high | 167 FPS | 259 FPS |
| ultra | 133 FPS | 197 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 135 FPS | 211 FPS |
| medium | 124 FPS | 194 FPS |
| high | 112 FPS | 163 FPS |
| ultra | 94 FPS | 131 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 837 FPS | 836 FPS |
| medium | 698 FPS | 696 FPS |
| high | 650 FPS | 649 FPS |
| ultra | 574 FPS | 573 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 602 FPS | 602 FPS |
| medium | 500 FPS | 500 FPS |
| high | 459 FPS | 458 FPS |
| ultra | 401 FPS | 400 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 430 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 336 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 300 FPS | 300 FPS |
| ultra | 243 FPS | 242 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 975 FPS | 975 FPS |
| medium | 883 FPS | 885 FPS |
| high | 758 FPS | 761 FPS |
| ultra | 656 FPS | 655 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 752 FPS | 745 FPS |
| medium | 654 FPS | 648 FPS |
| high | 558 FPS | 554 FPS |
| ultra | 479 FPS | 476 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 540 FPS | 531 FPS |
| medium | 479 FPS | 473 FPS |
| high | 420 FPS | 414 FPS |
| ultra | 363 FPS | 360 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7713 and EPYC 7763

EPYC 7713
EPYC 7713
The EPYC 7713 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.68 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 83,018 points. Launch price was $7,060.

EPYC 7763
EPYC 7763
The EPYC 7763 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.45 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 84,440 points. Launch price was $7,890.
Processing Power
Both the EPYC 7713 and EPYC 7763 share an identical 64-core/128-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.68 GHz on the EPYC 7713 versus 3.5 GHz on the EPYC 7763 — a 5% clock advantage for the EPYC 7713 (base: 2 GHz vs 2.45 GHz). Both are built on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture using a 7 nm+ process. In PassMark, the EPYC 7713 scores 83,018 against the EPYC 7763's 84,440 — a 1.7% lead for the EPYC 7763. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 64 / 128 |
| Boost Clock | 3.68 GHz+5% | 3.5 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2 GHz | 2.45 GHz+23% |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB (total) | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 7 nm+ | 7 nm+ |
| Architecture | Milan (2021−2023) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| PassMark | 83,018 | 84,440+2% |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP3 socket with PCIe 4.0. Both support up to 3200 memory speed. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7713) and SP3 (EPYC 7763).
| Feature | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 3200 | 3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4096 | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 8 | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d, SEV virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7713 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; EPYC 7763 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.
| Feature | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, SEV | VT-x, VT-d, SEV |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 7713 launched at $7060 MSRP, while the EPYC 7763 debuted at $7890. On MSRP ($7060 vs $7890), the EPYC 7713 is $830 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7713 delivers 11.8 pts/$ vs 10.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 7763 — making the EPYC 7713 the 9.4% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 7713 | EPYC 7763 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7060-11% | $7890 |
| Performance per Dollar | 11.8+10% | 10.7 |
| Release Date | 2021 | 2021 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













