AMD EPYC 7302 vs AMD EPYC 7601 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture across every Cinebench iteration. The AMD EPYC 7601 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with no victories for the AMD EPYC 7302. The margin is narrow but uniform, hovering near 5.9 percent in most tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7601 scores 3003 against 2836 for the EPYC 7302, a 5.9 percent advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 423 versus 400, a 5.8 percent lead for the older part.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The EPYC 7601 records 12516 multicore points, while the EPYC 7302 manages 11818, again a 5.9 percent gap. Single-core R20 scores are 1766 and 1668 respectively, with the same 5.9 percent delta. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 29800 for the EPYC 7601 and 28140 for the EPYC 7302, another 5.9 percent difference. The R23 single-core test rounds out the set with 4207 versus 3972, once more a 5.9 percent margin.

What stands out is the consistency of the advantage. The EPYC 7601 does not merely win, it wins by nearly the same proportion in every workload. This uniformity suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The delta between the two parts in average benchmark score is also informative: the EPYC 7601 sits at 8619, while the EPYC 7302 trails at 8139. That difference of roughly 5.9 percent aligns with the individual test results, reinforcing the picture of a steady, across-the-board lead.

Context from the nearest rivals adds perspective. The EPYC 7601's average score of 8619 places it 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Core i7-10510U (8580) and 0.5 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-8250U (8577). It is 0.5 percent behind the Intel Core i7-8565U (8665) and 0.6 percent ahead of the Intel Core i5-8265U (8568). The EPYC 7302, with its 8139 average, sits 0.1 percent behind the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y (8147), 0.2 percent ahead of the Intel Core i3-8100 (8123), 0.4 percent ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M (8110), and 0.8 percent ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 6326 (8071). Both EPYC parts occupy similar percentile territory, with the EPYC 7601 at the 65th percentile and the EPYC 7302 at the 64th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

The wins are not dramatic in percentage terms, but they are unambiguous. For a workload that scales with core count, one might expect the 32-core EPYC 7601 to dominate more decisively. Instead, the 16-core EPYC 7302 keeps the contest close, which speaks to its architectural efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations with fundamentally different designs. The AMD EPYC 7601 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. Its process node is 14 nm, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The AMD EPYC 7302 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, using the Zen 2 architecture under the codename Rome. It is built on a 7 nm process from TSMC, packing 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration.

These architectural differences translate directly into cache and core layouts. The EPYC 7601 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, with an L1 cache of 96 KB per core and an L2 cache of 512 KB per core. Its L3 cache is 64 MB shared. The EPYC 7302 offers half the cores at 16, with 32 threads. Its L1 cache is smaller at 64 KB per core, its L2 cache matches at 512 KB per core, and its L3 cache is organized as 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB across the chip. The total L3 capacity is double that of the EPYC 7601, a consequence of the chiplet design in Rome.

Clock speeds tell part of the story. The EPYC 7601 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The EPYC 7302 has a higher base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. Despite the higher clocks, the EPYC 7302 cannot overcome the core-count deficit in multicore workloads. The thermal envelope reflects the difference: the EPYC 7601 has a TDP of 180 watts, while the EPYC 7302 draws 155 watts. The newer part delivers more performance per watt, but the older part still wins on raw throughput.

Memory and I/O capabilities also differ. Both support DDR4 with eight-channel memory buses, but the EPYC 7601 achieves a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 7302 reaches 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe interface advances from Gen 3 on the EPYC 7601 to Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only) on the EPYC 7302. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the EPYC 7302 does not. Both share the AMD Socket SP3, and neither includes integrated graphics.

Release dates place the EPYC 7601 on 2017-06-28 and the EPYC 7302 on 2019-08-06. The EPYC 7302 has a recorded launch MSRP of $978, while the EPYC 7601 has no launch MSRP listed. Both remain in active production status for the server and workstation market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7601 has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the 16 cores and 32 threads of the AMD EPYC 7302.

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

A: The EPYC 7601 leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 423 versus 400, a 5.8 percent advantage. In R20 single-core, the scores are 1766 versus 1668, and in R23 single-core, 4207 versus 3972, both representing a 5.9 percent lead.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache capacity?

A: The EPYC 7302 has a total L3 cache of 128 MB, organized as 32 MB per die. The EPYC 7601 has 64 MB shared L3 cache. The newer part offers double the total L3 capacity.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The EPYC 7302 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, which is higher than the 2.20 GHz base clock of the EPYC 7601. The boost clocks are closer, with 3.30 GHz for the EPYC 7302 and 3.20 GHz for the EPYC 7601.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7601 and the EPYC 7302 support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 with eight-channel memory buses.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7302 achieves 204.8 GB/s, while the EPYC 7601 reaches 170.6 GB/s. The newer part has a clear advantage in memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. Core and thread counts are the most obvious gap: 32 cores and 64 threads for the EPYC 7601 against 16 cores and 32 threads for the EPYC 7302. Clock speeds favor the EPYC 7302, with a 3.00 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost compared to the EPYC 7601's 2.20 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The TDP is lower for the EPYC 7302 at 155 watts versus 180 watts for the EPYC 7601.

Architecture and process node separate the generations entirely. The EPYC 7601 uses the Zen architecture on a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries, with a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The EPYC 7302 uses Zen 2 on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a 4x 74 mm² die configuration and 15,200 million transistors. Cache layouts diverge as well: the EPYC 7601 has 96 KB L1 per core and 64 MB shared L3, while the EPYC 7302 has 64 KB L1 per core and 32 MB per die for a 128 MB total L3.

Memory bandwidth and PCIe support both favor the EPYC 7302. It offers 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only) versus PCIe Gen 3. Both parts share the same socket, memory type, memory bus width, ECC support, market segment, and production status. The EPYC 7601 has an unlocked multiplier, the EPYC 7302 does not. Release dates are 2017-06-28 for the EPYC 7601 and 2019-08-06 for the EPYC 7302. The part numbers are PS7601BDVIHAF and 100-000000043 respectively. The EPYC 7302 has a launch MSRP of $978; no launch MSRP is recorded for the EPYC 7601.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear on one point: the AMD EPYC 7601 wins every recorded comparison. Across six Cinebench tests, it leads by margins between 5.8 and 5.9 percent. Its average benchmark score of 8619 exceeds the EPYC 7302's 8139 by roughly 5.9 percent. For workloads that are heavily threaded and scale with core count, the EPYC 7601 with its 32 cores and 64 threads is the stronger choice according to the measurements.

The EPYC 7302, however, is not without justification. It delivers those results at a lower TDP of 155 watts against 180 watts, and it provides higher clock speeds, a 3.00 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, which help in lightly threaded scenarios. It also offers double the total L3 cache at 128 MB, a wider memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s, and newer PCIe Gen 4 support. Its architecture is more modern, built on a 7 nm process with a chiplet design that yields higher efficiency per watt. The percentile standings are nearly identical, with the EPYC 7601 at the 65th percentile and the EPYC 7302 at the 64th.

The data suggests a trade-off rather than a clear hierarchy. The EPYC 7601 is the pick for raw multicore performance, where its core advantage translates into measurable wins in every Cinebench test. The EPYC 7302 is the pick for platforms that prioritize lower power draw, higher memory bandwidth, or newer PCIe connectivity, accepting a roughly 5.9 percent performance deficit in the recorded benchmarks. Both parts sit in the same competitive neighborhood, with the EPYC 7601 edging ahead on average scores and the EPYC 7302 countering with architectural refinements and a later release date. The choice depends on which specifications matter more for a given server or workstation deployment.