AMD EPYC 7302P vs AMD EPYC 7371 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7371 and AMD EPYC 7302P are both 16-core, 32-thread server processors built for the AMD Socket SP3 platform, yet they represent two distinct generations of AMD’s EPYC lineup. The 7371 comes from the 7001 series (Naples, Zen architecture) released in late 2018, while the 7302P belongs to the 7002 series (Rome, Zen 2 architecture) launched in mid-2019. The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent performance advantage for the 7302P across every tested Cinebench workload, with the same relative gap in both single-core and multi-core tests. However, the two chips also differ significantly in architectural details, power efficiency, and platform capabilities, which leads to a clear but nuanced recommendation depending on workload priorities.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD EPYC 7302P as the stronger processor in every measured benchmark. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in single-core and multi-core variants), the 7302P wins outright, with a uniform performance delta of 5.8% ahead of the EPYC 7371. This consistency is notable: whether the workload is heavily threaded (multi-core) or lightly threaded (single-core), the 7302P maintains the same advantage, indicating a fundamental architectural lead rather than a workload-specific edge. The multi-core R23 score of 27,786 for the 7302P versus 26,164 for the 7371, and the single-core R23 score of 3,922 versus 3,693, both confirm the same pattern.

For buyers deciding between these two, the 7302P is the default choice if raw compute performance is the sole criterion, as it wins 100% of the head-to-head comparisons (six wins out of six). The 7371, however, is not without merit: it offers a higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 3.00 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz), yet these clock advantages do not translate into benchmark victories, likely due to the 7302P’s superior instructions per clock from the Zen 2 architecture. The 7371 also carries a higher TDP (170 watts versus 155 watts), meaning the 7302P delivers more performance while drawing less power under rated specifications. The 7302P is the one to pick for any modern server or workstation deployment where the latest platform features and better efficiency matter. The 7371 remains a viable option only for legacy compatibility or specific scenarios where its higher boost clock might be favored in certain lightly threaded, latency-sensitive applications, though the benchmark data does not support such a preference based on recorded scores alone.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results show a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7302P, with zero wins for the 7371 across all recorded tests. The 7302P wins in both multi-core and single-core categories in every Cinebench version, which means it is superior for both heavily parallel workloads (rendering, scientific computing, virtualization) and for single-threaded tasks (database queries, legacy software). The multi-core wins are particularly relevant for server workloads that exploit all 32 threads, such as video rendering or batch processing, where the 7302P’s R23 multi-core score of 27,786 outperforms the 7371’s 26,164 by a margin that scales directly from the 5.8% delta. Similarly, the single-core wins matter for workloads that depend on one or two threads, where the 7302P’s R23 single-core score of 3,922 versus 3,693 indicates better responsiveness in latency-sensitive applications.

The 7371 does have a theoretical advantage in clock speed, with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the 7302P’s 3.00 GHz and 3.30 GHz respectively. This could suggest that the 7371 might excel in situations where raw clock speed is the limiting factor, such as very lightly threaded, clock-sensitive tasks. However, the benchmark results show the opposite: the 7302P wins single-core tests despite a 500 MHz lower boost clock, meaning the architectural efficiency of Zen 2 more than compensates for the clock deficit. The 7371 also has a larger L3 cache per core configuration (64 MB shared versus 32 MB per die with a total of 128 MB for the 7302P), but again, this does not translate into a benchmark win. In summary, the 7302P wins in every recorded use case, while the 7371’s only potential edge would be in scenarios not captured by the Cinebench suite, such as specific memory-latency patterns or legacy instruction sets, though no data in the database supports such a claim.

Architecture Differences

The two processors reflect a generational leap in AMD’s server design. The EPYC 7371 is built on the Zen architecture (codename Naples) using a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, featuring 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The EPYC 7302P is built on the Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome) using a 7 nm process from TSMC, with 15,200 million transistors spread across four 74 mm² chiplets. This architectural change explains the performance difference: Zen 2 implements a chiplet design with separate I/O and compute dies, allowing for higher transistor density and improved efficiency. The 7302P’s lower TDP (155 watts versus 170 watts) despite having over three times the transistor count (15,200 million versus 4,800 million) demonstrates the power efficiency gains from the 7 nm node.

Cache hierarchies differ notably. The 7371 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7302P has 64 KB of L1 cache per core (smaller per core), the same 512 KB of L2 cache per core, but a different L3 structure: 32 MB per die, with a total of 128 MB across the four chiplets. The 7302P’s total L3 cache is double that of the 7371 (128 MB versus 64 MB), which helps in large working sets and multi-threaded workloads. The L1 reduction from 96 KB to 64 KB per core might seem like a regression, but the overall architectural efficiency of Zen 2 compensates, as shown in the benchmark scores.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4 memory with eight-channel memory buses, but the 7302P has higher memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s for the 7371. This bandwidth advantage is critical for memory-bound server workloads. PCIe support also differs: the 7371 uses PCIe Gen 3, while the 7302P offers PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), doubling the available I/O bandwidth for accelerators, NVMe storage, and networking. The 7302P also has a locked multiplier, while the 7371 has an unlocked multiplier, which is a minor consideration for overclocking but not typically relevant in server deployments. Both processors support ECC memory and have the same socket (SP3), making physical installation interchangeable, though the platform features (PCIe Gen 4, memory bandwidth) favor the 7302P.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 has a higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 7302P’s 3.30 GHz. The 7371 also has a higher base clock (3.10 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), yet the 7302P still wins all single-core benchmarks, indicating that the Zen 2 architecture delivers higher performance per clock cycle.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P offers 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD EPYC 7371 offers 170.6 GB/s. Both use DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus, but the 7302P’s higher bandwidth is a direct result of the Zen 2 chiplet design and improved memory controller.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7371 and the AMD EPYC 7302P support ECC memory, as recorded in the database. This is a standard requirement for server and workstation reliability.

Q: How do they compare in terms of PCIe support?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD EPYC 7371 supports PCIe Gen 3. The 7302P’s newer PCIe standard doubles the interconnect bandwidth, making it more suitable for modern high-speed devices.

Q: What is the transistor count and process node for each?

A: The AMD EPYC 7371 uses a 14 nm process with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. The AMD EPYC 7302P uses a 7 nm process with 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² chiplets, manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which processor has a higher total L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has a total of 128 MB of L3 cache (32 MB per die across four dies), while the AMD EPYC 7371 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7302P’s larger cache helps in workloads with large active datasets.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 7302P?

A: The launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 7302P is $825, as recorded in the database. The EPYC 7371 has no recorded launch MSRP in the available data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are remarkably uniform, with the AMD EPYC 7302P winning every single test by the same 5.8% margin. This consistency suggests that the performance difference is architectural and scale-invariant, rather than dependent on thread count or workload type.

In Cinebench R15, the 7302P scores 2,800 in multi-core against the 7371’s 2,637, a difference of 163 points. The single-core R15 results show 395 versus 372, a 23-point gap. Both are exactly 5.8% in favor of the 7302P. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 11,670 for the 7302P and 10,988 for the 7371, a gap of 682 points. The single-core R20 scores are 1,647 versus 1,551, a 96-point difference. Again, the 5.8% delta holds precisely.

The most recent Cinebench R23 results reinforce the pattern. In multi-core, the 7302P scores 27,786 while the 7371 scores 26,164, a difference of 1,622 points. In single-core, the 7302P scores 3,922 while the 7371 scores 3,693, a 229-point gap. All six tests show the same relative performance gap, which is a strong indicator that the 7302P’s advantage comes from its overall architecture (Zen 2 on 7 nm) rather than any specific optimization for certain instruction sets or thread counts.

The 7302P also has additional benchmark data not available for the 7371: a Geekbench multi-core score of 7,462 and a single-core score of 1,114. While these cannot be directly compared to the 7371 due to missing data, they show that the 7302P performs well in general-purpose compute tasks beyond Cinebench. The 7371’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 7,568, while the 7302P’s average is 7,100, which is lower because the Geekbench scores are included in the 7302P’s average but not in the 7371’s. Both processors rank in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, indicating they are mid-to-high range performers, though the head-to-head data clearly favors the 7302P. The 7371’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6500 (average score 7,569, essentially tied), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (7,578, 0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-4590 (7,609, 0.5% ahead). The 7302P’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-7980XE (7,018, 1.2% behind the 7302P), the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 (6,992, 1.6% behind), and the Intel Core i9-9960X (6,938, 2.3% behind). These rival comparisons show that while the 7371 is closely matched with several mainstream Intel desktop chips, the 7302P outperforms high-end Intel workstation and server parts, reinforcing the conclusion that the 7302P is the superior choice in this matchup.