AMD EPYC 72F3 vs AMD EPYC 7302P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents an unambiguous outcome. The AMD EPYC 7302P wins every single head-to-head comparison in the database. Across six tests, the 7302P holds a consistent advantage of approximately 20% over the AMD EPYC 72F3. There are no tests where the 72F3 comes out ahead.

Starting with the Cinebench R15 suite, the 7302P scores 2800 in multi-core while the 72F3 scores 2334, a lead of exactly 20%. In single-core, the 7302P posts 395 versus 329, a margin of 20.1%. The near-identical percentage across both workloads suggests the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The 7302P delivers 11670 in multi-core against 9728 for the 72F3, again a 20% difference. Single-core sees 1647 versus 1373, another 20% gap. The consistency is remarkable; these are not cases where one chip wins big in one test and barely edges out the other elsewhere.

Cinebench R23 continues the trend. Multi-core scores are 27786 for the 7302P and 23164 for the 72F3, a 20% delta. Single-core results are 3922 and 3270 respectively, a 19.9% difference. Across all six benchmarks, the 7302P’s smallest winning margin is 19.9%, and its largest is 20.1%. This is a tightly clustered set of results.

The average benchmark score in the database tells a similar story. The 7302P has an average score of 7100, while the 72F3 sits at 6700. That is a roughly 6% gap in aggregate performance, smaller than the 20% head-to-head margins because the average includes a broader set of workloads beyond the Cinebench suite. The 7302P also carries a 63rd percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus a 62nd percentile for the 72F3. These percentiles are close, but the 7302P edges ahead.

Examining the nearest rivals clarifies the competitive positioning. The 7302P’s closest competitor in the database is the Intel Core i9-7980XE with an average score of 7018, a difference of 1.2% in favor of the 7302P. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 trails by 1.6%, the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 by 1.9%, and the Intel Core i9-9960X by 2.3%. The 72F3, by contrast, sits nearly level with the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, which scores 6710, a difference of 0.1% against the 72F3. The Intel Xeon D-2775TE scores 6711, 0.2% behind, while the Intel Core i9-9940X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X trail by 0.6% and 0.8% respectively.

What does this mean in practical terms? The 7302P is a solid step above its immediate rivals, while the 72F3 is essentially tied with its nearest competition. The 7302P’s 20% sweep over the 72F3 is a decisive result. No workload category in the recorded data favors the 72F3. Whether the task is heavily threaded, lightly threaded, or single-core, the 7302P maintains its edge.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup. The 7302P belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. The 72F3 is from the Zen 3 generation, codenamed Milan. Both use a 7 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, but the underlying designs diverge significantly.

Core counts differ substantially. The 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 72F3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, exactly half the core and thread count. This explains the 7302P’s multi-core advantage despite the 72F3’s newer architecture. More cores generally translate to higher throughput in parallel workloads, and the data reflects that.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The 7302P has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The 72F3 runs at 3.70 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. The 72F3 has higher clocks on paper, yet it still loses single-core benchmarks by roughly 20%. This is a notable finding. The newer Zen 3 core should have a higher instructions-per-clock (IPC) compared to Zen 2, but the recorded single-core scores do not bear that out for this pairing. The 7302P’s 395 in Cinebench R15 single-core beats the 72F3’s 329 by 20.1%, despite the 72F3’s higher boost clock.

Cache configurations are a major differentiator. The 7302P has a split L3 cache design: 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB across the chip. The 72F3 has a shared L3 cache of 256 MB, double the total capacity of the 7302P. Both have identical L1 and L2 caches per core: 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2. The 72F3’s larger L3 cache is a hallmark of the Milan generation and should benefit workloads with large working sets, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into a win.

Die size and transistor counts also differ. The 7302P uses four dies, each measuring 74 mm², with a total of 15,200 million transistors. The 72F3 uses eight dies, each 81 mm², housing 33,200 million transistors. The 72F3 has more than double the transistor count and a larger total die area, consistent with its larger cache and newer core design.

Thermal design power differs as well. The 7302P has a TDP of 155 watts, while the 72F3 is rated at 180 watts. The 72F3 draws more power despite having half the cores, a consequence of its higher clocks and larger cache. Both processors use the AMD Socket SP3 platform, support DDR4 memory with eight-channel access, and provide identical memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and offer PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

Release dates are far apart. The 7302P launched on August 6, 2019. The 72F3 arrived on March 14, 2021, about nineteen months later. The 72F3 represents a newer design, yet the older 7302P wins every benchmark in the database. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the server and workstation market segment. Neither includes integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P wins all six head-to-head tests. It takes every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core benchmark. The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins none.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two chips?

A: The 7302P leads by 20% in five of the six tests, and by 20.1% in the remaining one. The smallest margin is 19.9% in Cinebench R23 single-core. The average benchmark score difference is smaller, with the 7302P averaging 7100 versus 6700 for the 72F3.

Q: Does the 72F3 have any architectural advantage over the 7302P?

A: Yes, the 72F3 uses the newer Zen 3 architecture, has higher base and boost clocks, and features a 256 MB shared L3 cache compared to 128 MB total L3 on the 7302P. It also has more than double the transistor count. However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

Q: Why does the 7302P win multi-core benchmarks despite having a lower boost clock?

A: The 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads, double the 8 cores and 16 threads of the 72F3. In multi-threaded workloads, the additional cores provide a substantial throughput advantage that outweighs the 72F3’s higher clock speeds.

Q: How do the two processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 7302P edges out the Intel Core i9-7980XE by 1.2% in average score, while the 72F3 is essentially tied with the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, trailing by 0.1%. The 72F3 also sits 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon D-2775TE and leads the Intel Core i9-9940X by 0.6%.

Q: Are both processors compatible with the same platform?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP3 and support DDR4 memory with eight-channel access. Both also provide PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes and support ECC memory. The 7302P has a TDP of 155 watts, while the 72F3 has a TDP of 180 watts.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7302P | AMD EPYC 72F3 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Rome | Milan |

| Cores | 16 | 8 |

| Threads | 32 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 155 W | 180 W |

| Transistors | 15,200 million | 33,200 million |

| Die Size | 4x 74 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 32 MB per die, 128 MB total | 256 MB shared |

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2021-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | $825 | $2468 |

| Part Number | 100-000000049 | 100-000000327100-100000327WOF |

Identical specifications include the 7 nm process node, TSMC as foundry, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 512 KB L2 cache per core, DDR4 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, AMD Socket SP3, no integrated graphics, locked multiplier, and active production status.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most workloads. The AMD EPYC 7302P outperforms the AMD EPYC 72F3 in every benchmark recorded in the database. The 20% margin across all six Cinebench tests is consistent and substantial. For multi-threaded server workloads, the 7302P’s double core count gives it a decisive advantage. For single-threaded tasks, it also wins, which is surprising given the 72F3’s newer architecture and higher clocks.

The 72F3 does offer a much larger L3 cache at 256 MB, which could benefit specific workloads that fit within that cache. It also has higher clock speeds and a more modern core design. But the benchmark data does not show any test where those features translate into a win. The 72F3’s average benchmark score of 6700 places it slightly below the 7302P’s 7100, and its 62nd percentile ranking trails the 7302P’s 63rd.

Buyers who prioritize raw performance across a broad range of workloads should favor the 7302P. Its nearest rivals are all within a few percentage points, and it leads them all. The 72F3, by contrast, is effectively tied with its nearest competitor, the Intel Xeon Gold 5317, and offers no benchmark advantage over the 7302P in this dataset.

The 72F3’s higher TDP of 180 watts versus 155 watts for the 7302P means it consumes more power for less measured performance. Its launch MSRP of $2468 is also higher than the 7302P’s launch MSRP of $825, although pricing considerations are separate from the performance data. The 72F3 may still be a reasonable choice for a narrow set of cache-sensitive workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not demonstrate such a scenario.

For general server and workstation use, the AMD EPYC 7302P is the stronger processor based on every measurement in the database. The 72F3’s architectural innovations do not overcome the 7302P’s core count and clock efficiency in practice. The verdict is straightforward: the 7302P wins on performance, and the 72F3 offers no compensating benchmark advantage.