AMD EPYC 4584PX vs AMD EPYC 7F72 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 7F72 wins 5. Despite that, both CPUs sit at the 96th percentile among all tested processors, indicating near-identical overall standing.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has an average benchmark score of 85,072, while the EPYC 4584PX averages 83,090. The 7F72 leads by 2.4% in this aggregate metric, per the nearestRivals deltaPct data.

Q: Which chip has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The EPYC 4584PX dominates in single-thread workloads. In PassMark single-thread tests, it scores 3,795 versus 2,384 for the 7F72 — a 37.2% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similar gap: 7,274 versus 6,328, a 13% lead.

Q: Where does the EPYC 7F72 outperform the 4584PX?

A: The 7F72 wins in data compression (808,795 vs 741,648, +9.1%), data encryption (56,261 vs 45,902, +22.6%), find prime numbers (498 vs 441, +12.9%), physics (6,459 vs 4,574, +41.2%), and random string sorting (102,436 vs 87,690, +16.8%).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The EPYC 7F72 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 7F72 offers 50% more cores and 50% more threads.

Q: How do their memory systems differ?

A: The 7F72 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 4584PX uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for workload-specific selection. If single-thread performance or lightly threaded tasks are the priority, the AMD EPYC 4584PX is the definitive choice. Its 37.2% lead in PassMark single-thread and consistent 13% advantage across all Cinebench single-core tests make it the superior pick for applications that rely on high clock speeds and per-core efficiency. The 4584PX boosts to 5.70 GHz versus 3.70 GHz on the 7F72, and its Zen 4 architecture delivers generational improvements that show in every single-core metric.

For multi-threaded server workloads where core count matters more than clock speed, the EPYC 7F72 holds its ground despite being older. It wins in five specific benchmarks — notably physics simulation with a 41.2% margin and data encryption with a 22.6% margin — indicating strengths in specialized server tasks. However, the 4584PX actually wins the majority of multi-threaded benchmarks too, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (51,524 vs 44,829) and PassMark multi-thread (58,117 vs 52,740), despite having 8 fewer cores. This suggests the Zen 4 architecture's efficiency compensates for the core deficit in most workloads.

The aggregate scores are close: 85,072 for the 7F72 versus 83,090 for the 4584PX. Both sit at the 96th percentile. The 7F72's nearest rival list includes the 4584PX at 2.4% behind, while the 4584PX's nearest rival list includes the 7F72 at 1.8% ahead — confirming these processors are near-peers in overall performance. The 4584PX is the better all-rounder for modern workloads, while the 7F72 is the pick for specific encryption, compression, and physics-heavy tasks where its 24 cores and 192 MB L3 cache shine.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 4584PX establishes a commanding lead in rendering and single-thread tests. Across all four Cinebench iterations — R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core — the 4584PX wins by a consistent 13% margin. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 51,524 versus 44,829, while R23 single-core shows 7,274 versus 6,328. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than benchmark-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite reveals a more nuanced story. The 4584PX wins extended instructions (53,774 vs 46,936, +12.7%), floating point math (121,460 vs 108,437, +10.7%), integer math (201,919 vs 181,103, +10.3%), and multi-thread (58,117 vs 52,740, +9.3%). Its single-thread score of 3,795 versus 2,384 is the largest margin of any benchmark at 37.2%.

The EPYC 7F72 counters in five areas. Its biggest win is PassMark physics at 6,459 versus 4,574 — a 41.2% advantage. Data encryption shows 56,261 versus 45,902, a 22.6% lead. Random string sorting goes 102,436 versus 87,690, a 16.8% edge. Find prime numbers is 498 versus 441, a 12.9% win. Data compression is closest at 808,795 versus 741,648, a 9.1% margin.

Notably, the 7F72 wins in these specific server-oriented tasks despite losing the overall multi-thread test. This suggests its 24-core/48-thread configuration excels in workloads with high parallelism but poor per-thread scaling — typical of encryption and compression pipelines. The 4584PX's 16-core/32-thread design with higher clocks wins where per-thread throughput matters.

The physics benchmark is particularly telling: the 7F72's 41.2% margin is its largest, while the 4584PX's single-thread victory at 37.2% is its largest. Both chips have clear specialties, and the data indicates these are not interchangeable for specialized workloads.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ substantially: the 7F72 packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads. Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The 7F72 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost; the 4584PX runs at 4.20 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost — a 2.0 GHz boost advantage for the newer chip.

Thermal design power shows a major gap. The 7F72 has a 240W TDP, double the 4584PX's 120W. This reflects the older 7 nm process versus the 5 nm process used in the 4584PX. The sockets are incompatible: the 7F72 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 4584PX uses AMD Socket AM5.

Memory support differs fundamentally. The 7F72 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 4584PX supports DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The 7F72 has 2.46x the memory bandwidth, which likely contributes to its data compression and encryption wins.

PCIe generations also differ: the 7F72 uses Gen 4, while the 4584PX uses Gen 5 with 28 lanes (CPU only). The 4584PX includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the 7F72 has no integrated graphics. The 4584PX's launch MSRP is $699; the 7F72 has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap spans two generations. The 7F72 uses Zen 2 architecture on the Rome codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The 4584PX uses Zen 4 on the Raphael codename, fabricated on TSMC's 5 nm process. The transistor counts reflect this leap: the 7F72 has 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the 4584PX has 17,840 million transistors spread across 2x 71 mm² dies.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The 7F72 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 192 MB of shared L3. The 4584PX has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3, plus a 1x 64 MB Slice of 3D V-Cache. The 7F72's larger total L3 (192 MB vs 128 MB plus 64 MB V-Cache) may explain its wins in cache-sensitive workloads like random string sorting.

The process node shrink delivers efficiency gains: the 4584PX doubles clock speeds while halving TDP. The 4584PX is part of the EPYC 4004 series, a newer product line. Both are marked as Active in production status. The 7F72 released in April 2020; the 4584PX released in May 2024 — a four-year gap that explains the architectural advancements.

The memory controller design also differs: the 7F72's eight-channel DDR4 setup versus the 4584PX's dual-channel DDR5. While the newer chip relies on faster DDR5 memory, the older chip's wider bus provides higher raw bandwidth — a tradeoff that manifests in benchmark results where the 7F72 wins bandwidth-heavy tasks.