AMD EPYC 72F3 vs AMD EPYC 7551 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7551 and AMD EPYC 72F3 are both server processors on the AMD Socket SP3 platform, but they represent very different approaches to server design. The EPYC 7551 is a 32-core, 64-thread processor from the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the Naples codename. The EPYC 72F3 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor from a later generation, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename. Despite the EPYC 72F3 having one quarter the core count, its benchmark results show it consistently ahead in every recorded test. This analysis walks through the architecture, benchmark data, and use cases to explain what each processor does best.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 72F3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The EPYC 7551 offers four times the core count and four times the thread count.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins in every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3270 against the EPYC 7551's 3119, a difference of 4.6%. The single-core advantage holds in Cinebench R15 (329 vs 314) and Cinebench R20 (1373 vs 1309).

Q: Does the EPYC 7551 win any multi-core benchmark?

A: No. The AMD EPYC 72F3 wins all three multi-core tests despite having far fewer cores. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 23164 while the EPYC 7551 scores 22096, again a 4.6% difference.

Q: What is the clock speed difference?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The AMD EPYC 7551 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: What are the cache differences?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD EPYC 7551 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 72F3 has an average benchmark score of 6700, while the AMD EPYC 7551 has an average benchmark score of 6391. Both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The EPYC 7551 uses the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, manufactured on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The EPYC 72F3 uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC. This process node difference is significant: the 7 nm node allows for a much smaller transistor footprint, which contributes to the EPYC 72F3's higher clock speeds.

The transistor counts tell part of the story. The EPYC 7551 integrates 4,800 million transistors on a die size of 213 mm². The EPYC 72F3 integrates 33,200 million transistors across a configuration described as 8x 81 mm². The EPYC 72F3 therefore packs far more transistors overall, despite having fewer cores. This explains how an 8-core chip can outperform a 32-core chip in multi-threaded workloads: the newer architecture is far more efficient per core.

Cache architecture differs substantially. The EPYC 7551 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, while the EPYC 72F3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core. Both have 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is the major difference: the EPYC 7551 has 64 MB shared, while the EPYC 72F3 has 256 MB shared. That is four times the L3 cache, which matters for workloads that reuse data across threads.

Both processors support DDR4 memory with eight-channel memory buses. The EPYC 7551 has a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 72F3 has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe support differs: the EPYC 7551 uses PCIe Gen 3, while the EPYC 72F3 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

The release dates are far apart. The EPYC 7551 was released on 2017-06-28, and the EPYC 72F3 was released on 2021-03-14. Both processors have the same TDP of 180 watts, which means the EPYC 72F3 delivers its performance advantage within the same power envelope. The EPYC 7551 is listed with an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 72F3 is not.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows the EPYC 72F3 winning all six head-to-head tests. There is no benchmark category in which the EPYC 7551 comes out ahead. However, the architecture differences suggest distinct use cases that the data does not directly measure.

The EPYC 7551, with its 32 cores and 64 threads, is designed for heavily parallel server workloads where core count is the primary factor. Applications that can scale across many threads, such as large-scale virtualization, database serving, or multi-tenant cloud workloads, would benefit from the raw thread count. The EPYC 7551 also has a 64 MB L3 cache, which is large by the standards of its generation, though it is dwarfed by the EPYC 72F3's 256 MB.

The EPYC 72F3, with its much higher clock speeds (3.70 GHz base, 4.10 GHz boost) and newer Zen 3 architecture, is positioned for workloads where per-core performance and cache capacity are critical. Its 256 MB L3 cache is particularly beneficial for workloads with large working sets that fit in cache. The higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz also helps single-threaded performance.

The data indicates that the EPYC 72F3's architectural advantages are sufficient to overcome the EPYC 7551's four-to-one core advantage in the Cinebench suite. Cinebench is a rendering workload, but it does demonstrate that the EPYC 72F3 can handle both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks effectively. For a user choosing between these two, the EPYC 72F3 offers better measured performance across the board, but the EPYC 7551 offers more cores for workloads that specifically need thread count scaling.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two processors are extensive. The core count differs by a factor of four: 32 cores for the EPYC 7551 versus 8 cores for the EPYC 72F3. Thread counts follow the same ratio: 64 threads versus 16 threads.

Base clock speeds differ significantly. The EPYC 7551 runs at 2.00 GHz base, while the EPYC 72F3 runs at 3.70 GHz base. Boost clocks also differ: 3.00 GHz for the EPYC 7551 versus 4.10 GHz for the EPYC 72F3. The EPYC 72F3 has a base clock that is higher than the EPYC 7551's boost clock.

The process node and foundry differ. The EPYC 7551 is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, while the EPYC 72F3 is built on a 7 nm process by TSMC. Transistor counts are 4,800 million for the EPYC 7551 and 33,200 million for the EPYC 72F3. Die sizes are 213 mm² for the EPYC 7551 and 8x 81 mm² for the EPYC 72F3.

L1 cache per core differs: 96 KB for the EPYC 7551 versus 64 KB for the EPYC 72F3. L2 cache per core is the same at 512 KB. L3 cache differs by a factor of four: 64 MB shared for the EPYC 7551 versus 256 MB shared for the EPYC 72F3.

Memory bandwidth differs: 170.6 GB/s for the EPYC 7551 versus 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC 72F3. PCIe support differs: Gen 3 for the EPYC 7551 versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only) for the EPYC 72F3.

The architectures are different generations: Zen (Naples) for the EPYC 7551, and Zen 3 (Milan) for the EPYC 72F3. The EPYC 7551 is from the EPYC 7001 series. The EPYC 7551 has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC 72F3 does not. The EPYC 7551 has a part number of PS7551BDVIHAF, while the EPYC 72F3 has a part number of 100-000000327100-100000327WOF. The EPYC 72F3 has a launch MSRP of $2468.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data covers six Cinebench tests, three multi-core and three single-core. The EPYC 72F3 wins all six. The margin is consistent, around 4.6% in most tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 2334 against the EPYC 7551's 2227, a 4.6% difference. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 329 against 314, again 4.6%. These are the oldest tests in the suite, and they show the same pattern as the newer ones.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 9728 against the EPYC 7551's 9280, a 4.6% difference. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 1373 against 1309, a 4.7% difference. This is the largest margin in the entire set, though only slightly larger than the others.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 23164 against the EPYC 7551's 22096, a 4.6% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 72F3 scores 3270 against 3119, a 4.6% difference.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across both single-core and multi-core tests, and across three different Cinebench versions, the EPYC 72F3 maintains nearly the same advantage. This suggests the performance gap is systemic rather than workload-specific. The EPYC 72F3's higher clock speeds and newer architecture provide a uniform advantage in this benchmark suite.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same trend. The EPYC 72F3 has an average score of 6700, while the EPYC 7551 has an average score of 6391. The EPYC 72F3's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 5317 with an average score of 6710 and a difference of 0.1%, the Intel Xeon D-2775TE with an average score of 6711 and a difference of 0.2%, the Intel Core i9-9940X with an average score of 6657 and a difference of 0.6%, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X with an average score of 6647 and a difference of 0.8%. The EPYC 7551's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10920X with an average score of 6347 and a difference of 0.7%, the Intel Core i7-12800HE with an average score of 6467 and a difference of 1.2%, the Intel Xeon D-2796TE with an average score of 6510 and a difference of 1.8%, and the Intel Xeon W-2191B with an average score of 6531 and a difference of 2.1%.

Both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means that despite the performance difference between them, both are positioned in the same tier relative to the broader CPU market.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in the benchmark results: the AMD EPYC 72F3 wins all six head-to-head tests and has a higher average benchmark score. For users who prioritize measured performance in Cinebench workloads, the EPYC 72F3 is the better choice. Its higher clock speeds, larger L3 cache, and newer Zen 3 architecture deliver consistent advantages across both single-core and multi-core tests.

The AMD EPYC 7551, however, offers four times the core count and thread count. For workloads that scale with thread count, such as running many virtual machines or serving many concurrent requests, the EPYC 7551's 32 cores and 64 threads may be more suitable. The database does not include benchmarks for such workloads, so this remains a qualitative consideration based on the core count.

The EPYC 72F3's 256 MB L3 cache is another factor. Workloads that repeatedly access large datasets can benefit from this cache capacity. The EPYC 7551's 64 MB L3 cache is smaller by a factor of four.

Both processors have a TDP of 180 watts, so the power envelope is identical. The EPYC 72F3 achieves its performance advantage within the same power limit, which is a point in its favor for power-constrained deployments.

The EPYC 72F3 also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC 7551 supports PCIe Gen 3. For systems with high-bandwidth peripherals, such as modern GPUs or NVMe storage, this is a meaningful difference. The EPYC 72F3 also has higher memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s.

For a user choosing between these two processors, the decision comes down to whether core count or per-core performance matters more. The benchmark data shows the EPYC 72F3 ahead in rendering workloads, making it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks measured by Cinebench. The EPYC 7551 remains relevant for scenarios that demand many threads, even though the recorded benchmarks do not reflect an advantage for it. The EPYC 72F3 is the better performer in the data, and the EPYC 7551 is the higher-core-count option for scale-out workloads.