AMD EPYC 7272 vs AMD EPYC 7551 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7551 and AMD EPYC 7272 are two server processors from different generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup, and the benchmark data reveals a surprisingly consistent, though narrow, advantage for the older, higher-core-count chip. Across every single Cinebench test—from the older R15 to the modern R23—the EPYC 7551 emerges as the winner, but the margin is a uniform 3.3% in each case. This uniformity is the first major takeaway: it suggests that the performance gap between these two is not workload-dependent in the Cinebench suite, but rather a fixed architectural and configuration offset.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are striking for their consistency. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7551 scores 2227 against the EPYC 7272’s 2155, a 3.3% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 314 versus 304, again a 3.3% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 9280 for the 7551 and 8982 for the 7272, while single-core is 1309 versus 1267. The most recent Cinebench R23 test repeats the story: multi-core 22096 versus 21386, and single-core 3119 versus 3019. In every instance, the deltaPct is exactly 3.3%.

What does this mean in practical terms? The EPYC 7551, despite being from the older Zen architecture (Naples) with a lower base clock of 2000 MHz, consistently outperforms the newer Zen 2-based EPYC 7272, which has a higher base clock of 2900 MHz and boost clock of 3200 MHz. The 7551’s advantage likely comes from its core count: 32 cores and 64 threads versus the 7272’s 12 cores and 24 threads. However, the fact that the lead is identical in single-threaded tests—where core count should be irrelevant—is curious. The 7551’s single-core score of 314 in R15 versus 304 for the 7272 suggests that even per-thread performance is slightly better on the older chip, despite the 7272’s higher clock speeds.

The data also shows that the 7551’s average benchmark score is 6391, placing it in the 62nd percentile of all CPUs. The 7272’s average score is 6186, which lands in the 61st percentile. These percentile rankings are remarkably close, reinforcing the idea that the two chips are near-peers in overall performance, even though the 7551 wins every head-to-head. When placed against their nearest rivals, the 7551 is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-10920X (avg score 6347) and 1.2% behind the Intel Core i7-12800HE (avg score 6467). The 7272, meanwhile, is 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7940X (avg score 6147) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7501 (avg score 6128). These rival comparisons show that both chips sit in a tightly contested performance band.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark tests?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 wins all 6 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD EPYC 7272, with a consistent 3.3% margin across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: Is the newer EPYC 7272 faster in single-threaded performance?

A: No. Despite having a higher base clock (2900 MHz) and boost clock (3200 MHz) than the EPYC 7551 (2000 MHz base, 3000 MHz boost), the 7272 scores lower in single-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 7272 scores 3019 versus the 7551’s 3119.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7272 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This gives the 7551 a 2.67x advantage in raw core count.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7551 has an average benchmark score of 6391, while the EPYC 7272 averages 6186. This represents a 3.3% difference, mirroring the head-to-head results.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Nearly. The EPYC 7551 sits in the 62nd percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 7272 sits in the 61st percentile. This means both are in the top half of all processors, but the 7551 has a slight edge.

Q: Does the EPYC 7272 have any architectural advantages?

A: Yes, it uses the newer Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process, compared to the 7551’s Zen architecture on 14 nm. It also supports PCIe Gen 4, whereas the 7551 only supports Gen 3. However, these advantages do not translate into a benchmark win in the Cinebench suite.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear sweep for the AMD EPYC 7551 in all benchmark categories, so the "wins" are entirely one-sided. However, examining the nature of the benchmarks reveals where each chip’s strengths lie conceptually. The 7551 wins in multi-core tests by a 3.3% margin, which is modest given its 32 cores versus 12. This suggests that the 7272’s higher clock speeds (2900 MHz base versus 2000 MHz) and newer Zen 2 architecture are effectively closing the gap that core count would otherwise create. In a heavily threaded workload that scales perfectly, one might expect the 7551 to dominate by a larger margin, but the data shows it does not.

For single-core performance, the 7551 also wins by 3.3%, which is counterintuitive given the 7272’s higher boost clock of 3200 MHz versus 3000 MHz. This could indicate that the 7551’s Zen architecture has a higher instructions-per-clock (IPC) efficiency in this specific benchmark, or that the 7272’s power management limits its sustained single-thread boost. The 7272’s lower TDP of 120 watts versus 180 watts for the 7551 might also play a role, potentially capping performance under sustained loads.

In practical terms, the 7551 is the better choice for workloads that benefit from its 32 cores, such as database servers, virtualization hosts, or scientific computing, where the extra threads provide headroom. The 7272, despite losing every benchmark, is not a poor performer—it is within 3.3% of the 7551 in all tests. For workloads that are lightly threaded but need fast response times, the 7272’s higher clocks might make it feel more responsive, even if the Cinebench scores do not reflect that. However, based strictly on the benchmark data, the 7551 wins everywhere.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core specifications, which partially explains the benchmark results. The EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7272 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This is a major difference in compute density. The base clock of the 7551 is 2000 MHz, while the 7272 runs at 2900 MHz. The boost clock also differs: 3000 MHz for the 7551 and 3200 MHz for the 7272. The thermal design power (TDP) is another differentiator, with the 7551 rated at 180 watts and the 7272 at 120 watts.

Cache configurations also diverge. The 7551 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 64 MB of shared L3. The 7272 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its L3 is organized as 32 MB per die, totaling 64 MB across two dies. Memory bandwidth is notably different: the 7551 supports 170.6 GB/s, while the 7272 supports 85.3 GB/s. Both support eight-channel DDR4 memory and ECC, but the PCIe generation differs—the 7551 uses Gen 3, while the 7272 uses Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The release dates are also distinct, with the 7551 launching on 2017-06-28 and the 7272 on 2019-08-06. The 7272 has a launch MSRP of $625, while the 7551 has no listed launch MSRP in the data. The multiplier is unlocked on the 7551 but locked on the 7272. Finally, the process node and foundry differ: the 7551 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, while the 7272 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC with 7,600 million transistors across two 74 mm² dies.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are chips from two distinct generations. The EPYC 7551 is based on the original Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and belongs to the EPYC 7001 series. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The EPYC 7272, on the other hand, uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and belongs to the EPYC 7002 series. It is built on a 7 nm process from TSMC, packing 7,600 million transistors into two 74 mm² chiplets.

The cache hierarchy reflects this generational shift. The 7551 has a larger L1 cache per core (96 KB versus 64 KB), but the 7272’s L3 is split across two dies, each with 32 MB, for a total of 64 MB—the same total as the 7551’s shared 64 MB L3. The 7272’s memory bandwidth is lower (85.3 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s), which is surprising given its newer architecture, but it may reflect a different memory controller configuration or a lower number of active memory channels in the tested configuration.

The most significant architectural difference is the PCIe support. The 7551 offers PCIe Gen 3, while the 7272 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). This makes the 7272 more suitable for high-bandwidth I/O workloads, such as NVMe storage arrays or high-speed networking. The 7272 also has a locked multiplier, whereas the 7551 is unlocked, allowing for overclocking on the older chip. The 7272’s transistor count is nearly 60% higher than the 7551’s, despite having fewer cores, which confirms the density improvements of the 7 nm process.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 7551 is the better performer. It wins all six Cinebench tests by a uniform 3.3% margin, and its average benchmark score of 6391 is higher than the 7272’s 6186. The 7551 also has a higher percentile ranking (62nd versus 61st). For workloads that rely heavily on multi-threaded performance, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy virtualization, the 7551’s 32 cores and 64 threads provide a solid foundation, even if the per-thread performance is only marginally better than the 7272’s.

However, the 7272 is not without its merits. It offers PCIe Gen 4 support, which the 7551 lacks, making it a better fit for systems that need fast I/O. Its lower TDP of 120 watts versus 180 watts suggests it may be more power-efficient in certain configurations, though the data does not provide direct power consumption measurements. The 7272 also has a newer architecture (Zen 2 on 7 nm) and a higher boost clock, which could make it more responsive in lightly threaded tasks, even if the benchmarks do not show this. The 7272 has a launch MSRP of $625, while the 7551 has no listed price, so cost comparisons cannot be made.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput and are willing to accept higher power consumption and older PCIe, the EPYC 7551 is the clear choice from the data. For those who need modern I/O capabilities or operate in power-constrained environments, the EPYC 7272 may be more appealing, despite its slightly lower benchmark scores. The data does not support a definitive verdict for the 7272 in terms of performance, but its architectural advantages suggest it has a role in specific server deployments where I/O bandwidth and power efficiency are critical.