AMD EPYC 7302 vs AMD EPYC 7551P Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between these two AMD EPYC processors. The AMD EPYC 7551P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with a consistent 13.4% advantage across both multi-core and single-core workloads. The EPYC 7302, despite being from the newer Zen 2 generation, never surpasses its predecessor in any tested metric. For workloads dominated by Cinebench-style rendering, the 7551P is the better performer. However, the 7302 operates at a lower TDP of 155 watts compared to 180 watts for the 7551P, which may influence platform-level decisions. The 7302 also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, whereas the 7551P is limited to PCIe Gen 3. Both processors share a 64th-percentile ranking among all CPUs, indicating similar overall standing in the broader market. The 7302's average benchmark score of 8139 is slightly higher than the 7551P's 7952, driven by the single Geekbench test the older chip runs. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench throughput, the 7551P is the clear choice; for those needing newer PCIe capabilities and lower power draw, the 7302 has compensating strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD EPYC generations, and the architectural gap is substantial. The EPYC 7302 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, using a 7 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a die size of 4x 74 mm². The EPYC 7551P uses the original Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, fabricated on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a single 213 mm² die.

Core counts differ significantly. The 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 7551P has double the cores at 32, with 64 threads. Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The 7302 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The 7551P has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. This means the 7302 has a higher base clock by a full 1.00 GHz, but the 7551P's boost clock is only 0.30 GHz lower. The 7551P's higher core count compensates for its lower base frequency in multi-threaded workloads.

Cache configurations also diverge. The 7302 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3. The 7551P offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3. Memory support is identical in channel count—both use eight-channel DDR4—but bandwidth differs: the 7302 delivers 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s for the 7551P. Both support ECC memory. The 7302 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7551P is limited to PCIe Gen 3 without a specified lane count in the data. The 7551P has an unlocked multiplier, while the 7302 does not. Both use the AMD Socket SP3.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7551P wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head data. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 3276 versus 2836 for the 7302. In R15 single-core, it scores 462 versus 400. The R20 multi-core test shows 13650 for the 7551P and 11818 for the 7302. R20 single-core has the 7551P at 1926 and the 7302 at 1668. R23 multi-core delivers 32500 for the 7551P and 28140 for the 7302. R23 single-core shows 4588 versus 3972. The delta is consistently 13.4% in favor of the 7551P across all six tests. This uniformity suggests the older chip has a fundamental performance advantage in Cinebench workloads, regardless of thread count.

The EPYC 7302 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has non-benchmark advantages. Its memory bandwidth is 20% higher at 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s, and it uses PCIe Gen 4, which doubles the per-lane bandwidth of the 7551P's PCIe Gen 3. The 7302 also draws 25 fewer watts of TDP. The 7302's Geekbench presence is absent from head-to-head data, but its average benchmark score of 8139 is 2.3% higher than the 7551P's 7952, implying the 7302 performs better in the Geekbench multi-core test that the 7551P runs. However, the 7551P's Geekbench single-core score of 919 and multi-core score of 6296 are not directly comparable to the 7302, which has no Geekbench results in its benchmark list.

For single-threaded performance, the 7551P wins all three Cinebench single-core tests despite having a lower base clock and a slightly lower boost clock. This indicates the 7551P's architecture, despite being older, delivers better per-core performance in these specific workloads. The 7302's higher base clock does not translate into single-core wins. For heavily multi-threaded workloads, the 7551P's 32 cores versus 16 clearly dominate, and the 13.4% delta is relatively modest given the 2x core advantage, suggesting the 7302's Zen 2 architecture is more efficient per core.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500, which is 13.4% higher than the EPYC 7302's 28140.

Q: Are both processors compatible with the same socket?

A: Yes, both use the AMD Socket SP3.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7302 has higher memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s, compared to 170.6 GB/s for the EPYC 7551P.

Q: Does the EPYC 7302 support PCIe Gen 4?

A: Yes, it supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7551P is limited to PCIe Gen 3.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7302 has a TDP of 155 watts, while the EPYC 7551P has a TDP of 180 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data leaves no ambiguity: the EPYC 7551P wins every comparison, with the exact same 13.4% delta in each test. This uniformity is remarkable. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7551P scores 3276 against the 7302's 2836. The single-core R15 test shows 462 for the 7551P and 400 for the 7302. Both results carry the same 13.4% gap. This pattern repeats in R20, where the 7551P achieves 13650 multi-core and 1926 single-core, versus 11818 and 1668 for the 7302. The R23 results are equally one-sided: 32500 multi-core and 4588 single-core for the 7551P, against 28140 and 3972 for the 7302.

The consistency of the 13.4% delta across all six tests suggests a systematic performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The 7551P's 32 cores and 64 threads provide the multi-core wins, but its single-core victories are more surprising given the 7302's higher base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.00 GHz. The 7551P's boost clock of 3.00 GHz is only 0.30 GHz below the 7302's 3.30 GHz boost, and the older Zen architecture apparently sustains higher single-thread performance in Cinebench. The 7302's larger L3 cache of 128 MB versus 64 MB does not help it in these tests, nor does its faster memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s.

The average benchmark scores provide a slightly different picture. The 7302 has an average score of 8139, which is 2.3% higher than the 7551P's 7952. This is because the 7302's benchmark set includes only Cinebench tests, while the 7551P also runs Geekbench, where it scores 6296 multi-core and 919 single-core. The 7551P's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10980XE at 7910 (0.5% lower) and the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 at 8071 (1.5% higher). The 7302's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y at 8147 (0.1% higher) and the Intel Core i3-8100 at 8123 (0.2% higher). Both processors sit in the 64th percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are neither top-tier nor entry-level in the broader market.

The biggest wins for the 7551P are uniform across every test, so no single workload stands out. The 7302's wins are not in benchmark scores but in platform features: PCIe Gen 4 support, 128 lanes, higher memory bandwidth, and 25 watts lower TDP. For a workload that stresses memory bandwidth or PCIe connectivity, the 7302 could be the better choice, but the benchmark data itself shows no such advantage. The 7551P's 13.4% lead in Cinebench is the defining metric, and it applies equally to single-core and multi-core tests. This makes the 7551P the straightforward recommendation for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, while the 7302 appeals to those prioritizing newer I/O standards and lower power consumption.