AMD EPYC 7302 vs AMD EPYC 7371 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz. The 7371 is the faster part at the base frequency, though the 7302 has a lower TDP of 155 W compared to 170 W for the 7371.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 scores 3972 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the AMD EPYC 7371 scores 3693. The 7302 leads by 7% in this test, a margin that repeats across all single-core benchmarks in the database.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7371 and the AMD EPYC 7302 support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth differs, however: the 7371 delivers 170.6 GB/s, while the 7302 delivers 204.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in manufacturing process between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the AMD EPYC 7302 uses a 7 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this: 4,800 million for the 7371 versus 15,200 million for the 7302.

Q: Which CPU has a higher aggregate benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302 has an average benchmark score of 8139, placing it in the 64th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD EPYC 7371 averages 7568, sitting in the 63rd percentile.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD EPYC 7302 does not. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 and target the server/workstation segment.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent two consecutive generations of AMD EPYC design. The AMD EPYC 7371 is part of the 7001 series, using the Zen architecture with the codename Naples, while the AMD EPYC 7302 belongs to the 7002 series, built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. This generational leap is visible in nearly every layer of the silicon.

The fabrication process is the most fundamental split. The 7371 is manufactured on a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The 7302 moves to TSMC's 7 nm process, and its design uses four chiplets, each 74 mm², for a total of 15,200 million transistors. The smaller process node allows the 7302 to pack more than three times the transistors into a smaller total die area, which explains much of its performance advantage.

Cache architecture also diverges. The 7371 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7302 has a smaller L1 at 64 KB per core, the same 512 KB L2 per core, but a larger L3 configuration: 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB across the chip. The shift from a single monolithic L3 pool in the 7371 to a per-die L3 allocation in the 7302 reflects the chiplet-based Rome design.

Memory bandwidth is another clear differentiator. Both parts use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, but the 7302 reaches 204.8 GB/s while the 7371 tops out at 170.6 GB/s. The 7302 also brings PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes on the CPU, whereas the 7371 is limited to PCIe Gen 3. The 7302 is the more modern platform in both memory and I/O capability.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The 7371 has the higher base clock at 3.10 GHz and the higher boost clock at 3.80 GHz. The 7302 runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the 7302 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, which points to the architectural efficiency of Zen 2 over Zen. The 7371 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the 7302 is locked, a detail that matters for overclocking but not for the measured stock performance. The 7302 carries a launch MSRP of $978; the 7371 has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7302 wins every single test in the head-to-head comparison. Across six Cinebench workloads, spanning R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes, the 7302 consistently leads by 7%. There is no recorded benchmark where the 7371 takes a win.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded throughput, the 7302 is the clear choice. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28140 versus 26164 for the 7371, and its R20 multi-core score of 11818 versus 10988, show a processor that extracts more work from the same 16-core, 32-thread configuration. The 7302 achieves this with a lower TDP of 155 W compared to 170 W for the 7371, meaning it delivers more performance with less power draw.

Single-threaded performance also favors the 7302, despite the 7371's higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. The 7302 scores 3972 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 400 in Cinebench R15 single-core, both 7% ahead of the 7371. This is a direct demonstration of the IPC gains from Zen 2's 7 nm design over Zen's 14 nm design.

The only area where the 7371 holds a specification advantage is clock speed. Its 3.10 GHz base clock and 3.80 GHz boost clock are higher than the 7302's 3.00 GHz and 3.30 GHz, and it has an unlocked multiplier. But the recorded benchmarks show that these clock advantages do not translate into performance wins. The 7302 is the better server/workstation processor by every measured metric. The 7371 would be the pick only in a scenario where its higher clocks and unlocked multiplier matter more than the 7302's architectural efficiency, but the data does not support that choice for standard workloads.

Specification Differences

The AMD EPYC 7371 and AMD EPYC 7302 share several core specifications: both have 16 cores, 32 threads, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, DDR4 memory support, an eight-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, the AMD Socket SP3, and a server/workstation market segment. The differences are substantial elsewhere.

The 7371 uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The 7302 uses Zen 2 on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with a chiplet design of 4x 74 mm² and 15,200 million transistors. The 7371 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 64 MB of shared L3 cache; the 7302 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB.

Base clocks differ: 3.10 GHz for the 7371 versus 3.00 GHz for the 7302. Boost clocks also differ: 3.80 GHz for the 7371 versus 3.30 GHz for the 7302. The 7371 has a TDP of 170 W, the 7302 has a TDP of 155 W. Memory bandwidth is 170.6 GB/s for the 7371 and 204.8 GB/s for the 7302. PCIe support is Gen 3 for the 7371 and Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the 7302. The 7371 has an unlocked multiplier; the 7302 does not. The 7302 has a launch MSRP of $978; the 7371 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison contains six benchmarks, and the AMD EPYC 7302 wins all six by a uniform 7% margin. This consistency is notable: across different Cinebench versions and across single-core versus multi-core workloads, the delta never changes.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7302 scores 2836 against 2637 for the 7371. The 7% gap means the 7302 finishes roughly 200 points higher, a meaningful margin for a 16-core part. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 7302 scores 400 against 372, again a 7% lead. The single-core result is particularly telling because the 7371 has a higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the 7302, yet it still trails in single-threaded work.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the 7302 scores 11818 in multi-core versus 10988 for the 7371. The absolute gap widens to 830 points, but the relative margin stays at 7%. In R20 single-core, the 7302 scores 1668 against 1551, a 117-point gap at the same 7% rate.

Cinebench R23 shows the same pattern. The 7302 scores 28140 in multi-core versus 26164 for the 7371, a difference of 1976 points. In single-core, the 7302 scores 3972 against 3693, a 279-point gap. The consistent 7% delta across all six tests suggests a fixed architectural efficiency advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

The database also places each CPU among its nearest rivals. The 7371 has an average benchmark score of 7568, sitting next to the Intel Core i5-6500 at 7569 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at 7578 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i5-4590 at 7609 (-0.5%), and the Intel Core i5-7400 at 7469 (1.3%). The 7302 averages 8139, with rivals including the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y at 8147 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i3-8100 at 8123 (0.2%), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M at 8110 (0.4%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 8071 (0.8%). The 7302's nearest rivals are mostly server-class Xeon parts, while the 7371 sits alongside desktop Core i5 processors, which shows the performance tier difference between the two EPYC chips.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7302 wins in every measured benchmark category. It takes all six head-to-head tests, covering multi-core and single-core performance across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its multi-core scores are consistently higher, which matters for heavily threaded server workloads such as virtualization, database processing, and scientific computing. Its single-core scores are also higher, which benefits applications that rely on per-thread performance, such as certain database queries and legacy software that does not scale across cores.

The 7302 also wins on memory bandwidth, delivering 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s for the 7371. This gives it an edge in memory-bound workloads. Its PCIe Gen 4 support with 128 lanes is another platform advantage over the 7371's PCIe Gen 3, which matters for high-speed storage and accelerator connectivity. The 7302 achieves all of this with a lower TDP of 155 W versus 170 W, so it offers better performance per watt as well.

The AMD EPYC 7371 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its advantages are limited to specification fields: a higher base clock of 3.10 GHz, a higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz, and an unlocked multiplier. These are meaningful for scenarios where raw clock speed is the priority, but the recorded benchmarks show that the 7302's Zen 2 architecture overcomes the clock deficit. The 7371 also has a larger L1 cache per core at 96 KB versus 64 KB, though this does not translate into a benchmark advantage.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the 7302 is the stronger option across every workload represented in the database. The 7371's case rests on its clock speeds and unlocked multiplier, but the data shows that those features do not compensate for the architectural gap. The 7302 is the winner in multi-core throughput, single-core throughput, memory bandwidth, and platform connectivity, and it does so while drawing less power. The 7371's only defensible use case is one where its specific clock and overclocking features are the deciding factor, but no benchmark in the recorded data supports that choice.