
EPYC 7J13
Popular choices:

EPYC 7663
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 7J13
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($7,890 MSRP vs $6,366 MSRP).
- ❌16.7% higher power demand at 280W vs 240W.
EPYC 7663
2021Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,524 less on MSRP ($6,366 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 20.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.9 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($6,366 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 240W instead of 280W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7J13 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (82,120 vs 84,786).
EPYC 7J13
2021EPYC 7663
2021Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +8.2% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
Why buy it
- ✅Costs $1,524 less on MSRP ($6,366 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 20.0% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 12.9 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($6,366 MSRP vs $7,890 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 240W instead of 280W, a 40W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 12.9 PassMark/$ ($7,890 MSRP vs $6,366 MSRP).
- ❌16.7% higher power demand at 280W vs 240W.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 7J13 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (82,120 vs 84,786).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7J13 better than EPYC 7663?
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 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 190 FPS | 190 FPS |
| medium | 155 FPS | 155 FPS |
| high | 123 FPS | 123 FPS |
| ultra | 96 FPS | 96 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 156 FPS | 156 FPS |
| medium | 123 FPS | 123 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 94 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 75 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 72 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 60 FPS |
| high | 46 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 38 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 422 FPS | 238 FPS |
| medium | 371 FPS | 211 FPS |
| high | 301 FPS | 174 FPS |
| ultra | 237 FPS | 138 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 347 FPS | 195 FPS |
| medium | 313 FPS | 177 FPS |
| high | 261 FPS | 151 FPS |
| ultra | 200 FPS | 116 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 213 FPS | 121 FPS |
| medium | 196 FPS | 112 FPS |
| high | 164 FPS | 97 FPS |
| ultra | 132 FPS | 79 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 836 FPS | 836 FPS |
| medium | 696 FPS | 696 FPS |
| high | 649 FPS | 649 FPS |
| ultra | 573 FPS | 573 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 602 FPS | 602 FPS |
| medium | 500 FPS | 500 FPS |
| high | 458 FPS | 458 FPS |
| ultra | 400 FPS | 400 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 430 FPS | 430 FPS |
| medium | 335 FPS | 335 FPS |
| high | 300 FPS | 300 FPS |
| ultra | 242 FPS | 242 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 977 FPS | 954 FPS |
| medium | 886 FPS | 863 FPS |
| high | 762 FPS | 739 FPS |
| ultra | 656 FPS | 637 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 746 FPS | 733 FPS |
| medium | 649 FPS | 636 FPS |
| high | 555 FPS | 542 FPS |
| ultra | 477 FPS | 466 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 532 FPS | 522 FPS |
| medium | 473 FPS | 464 FPS |
| high | 415 FPS | 406 FPS |
| ultra | 361 FPS | 353 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7J13 and EPYC 7663

EPYC 7J13
EPYC 7J13
The EPYC 7J13 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2021-03-01. It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2.55 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. Passmark benchmark score: 84,786 points. Launch price was $6,000.

EPYC 7663
EPYC 7663
The EPYC 7663 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 56 cores and 112 threads. Base frequency is 2 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): 240 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 82,120 points. Launch price was $6,366.
Processing Power
The EPYC 7J13 packs 64 cores / 128 threads, while the EPYC 7663 offers 56 cores / 112 threads — the EPYC 7J13 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the EPYC 7J13 versus 3.5 GHz on the EPYC 7663 — identical boost frequencies (base: 2.55 GHz vs 2 GHz). Both are built on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture using a 7 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 7J13 scores 84,786 against the EPYC 7663's 82,120 — a 3.2% lead for the EPYC 7J13. Both processors carry 256 MB (total) of L3 cache.
| Feature | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128+14% | 56 / 112 |
| Boost Clock | 3.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.55 GHz+27% | 2 GHz |
| 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 | 84,786+3% | 82,120 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,370 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 12,380 |
Memory & Platform
Both processors use the SP3 socket with PCIe 4.0. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 7J13 versus DDR4-3200 on the EPYC 7663 — the EPYC 7J13 supports 199.5% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7J13) and SP3 (EPYC 7663).
| Feature | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | SP3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 3200+79900% | DDR4-3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4096 | 4096 GB+104857500% |
| RAM Channels | 8 | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, SEV (EPYC 7J13) vs AMD-V (EPYC 7663). Primary use case: EPYC 7663 targets Server. Direct competitor: EPYC 7J13 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; EPYC 7663 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380.
| Feature | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d, SEV | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Server |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 7J13 launched at $7890 MSRP, while the EPYC 7663 debuted at $6366. On MSRP ($7890 vs $6366), the EPYC 7663 is $1524 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7J13 delivers 10.7 pts/$ vs 12.9 pts/$ for the EPYC 7663 — making the EPYC 7663 the 18.2% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 7J13 | EPYC 7663 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $7890 | $6366-19% |
| Performance per Dollar | 10.7 | 12.9+21% |
| Release Date | 2021 | 2021 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













