AMD EPYC 7351 vs AMD EPYC 7501 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, across-the-board lead for the AMD EPYC 7501 over the AMD EPYC 7351 in every recorded Cinebench test. The EPYC 7501 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins that stay remarkably uniform between 7.3% and 7.5%. This is not a case of one chip winning on multi-threaded workloads while the other takes single-threaded; the 7501 dominates both.

Starting with multi-core performance, the gap is steady. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 2135 against the EPYC 7351's 1989, a 7.3% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the 7501 posts 8898 versus 8291, again a 7.3% lead. In the more demanding Cinebench R23 multi-core test, the 7501 reaches 21186 while the 7351 manages 19742, holding the same 7.3% delta. The consistency of that margin across different Cinebench versions suggests the performance difference scales evenly with workload intensity rather than appearing only in specific test conditions.

Single-core results tell a slightly different story, with the EPYC 7501's edge being marginally larger. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 7501 scores 301 against the 7351's 280, a 7.5% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1256 versus 1170, a 7.4% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core rounds out the set with 2991 versus 2787, back to 7.3%. The single-core deltas are a touch higher than the multi-core ones, which is notable because both chips share the same Zen architecture and process node. The difference likely comes from the 7501's higher boost clock, which is 3.00 GHz compared to the 7351's 2.90 GHz, giving it a small but measurable advantage in lightly threaded tasks.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the hierarchy. The EPYC 7501 carries an average score of 6128 across the database, while the EPYC 7351 averages 5710. That is a 7.3% overall difference, matching the head-to-head deltas almost exactly. In percentile terms, both chips sit at the 61st percentile against all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same general performance tier relative to the broader market, even though the 7501 is clearly faster within that tier.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context beyond this direct comparison. The EPYC 7501's average score of 6128 places it 0.3% behind the Intel Core i9-7940X, which averages 6147, and 0.9% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6186. It also trails the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X by 1.7% (6231) and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U by 1.9% (6247). For the EPYC 7351, its 5710 average puts it just 0.1% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7F32 at 5703, 0.4% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X at 5730, 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7920X at 5673, and 1% behind the Intel Xeon W-2175 at 5770. The 7501 competes with high-core-count desktop and server parts, while the 7351 sits in a similar range but with different direct rivals.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the same family, so the architecture differences are minimal by design. The EPYC 7501 and EPYC 7351 are both part of the EPYC 7001 series, built on AMD's Zen architecture with the codename Naples. They share the same 14 nm process node, fabricated by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. This means the fundamental silicon is identical; the differences come from how the chips are configured, not from architectural changes.

The most significant architectural divergence is core count. The EPYC 7501 features 32 cores with 64 threads, while the EPYC 7351 carries 16 cores with 32 threads. That is exactly half the core count in the 7351, which is a major factor in multi-threaded performance. Yet the benchmark results show only a 7.3% gap in multi-core scores, not the roughly 50% or more that a doubling of cores might suggest on paper. This indicates the 7351 compensates with other characteristics, primarily clock speed, or that the workloads in these Cinebench tests do not scale perfectly with core count at this level.

Cache configurations are identical between the two chips. Both offer 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is also the same: DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on both, and both use PCIe Gen 3. The socket is AMD Socket SP3 for both, and both have an unlocked multiplier, which allows for overclocking if the platform supports it.

The base and boost clocks differ, and this is where the 7351 shows its hand. The EPYC 7351 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 7501's 2.00 GHz base clock. However, the boost clock favors the 7501 at 3.00 GHz versus the 7351's 2.90 GHz. The 7351's higher base clock helps it maintain performance in all-core workloads where boost clocks may not be sustainable, while the 7501's higher boost clock gives it an edge in single-threaded and lightly threaded scenarios. Both parts have a TDP of 170 W, meaning the power envelope is identical despite the core count difference.

Both chips were released on the same date, June 28, 2017, and both are marked as Active in production status. The part numbers differ, with the 7501 being PS7501BEVIHAF and the 7351 being PS7351BEVGPAF. Neither has integrated graphics, and both target the Server/Workstation market segment.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the AMD EPYC 7501 wins everywhere in the direct comparison. It outperforms the EPYC 7351 in all six Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core scenarios. The 7501 is the stronger choice for any workload that benefits from higher raw Cinebench scores, which typically correlates with rendering, simulation, and other compute-intensive tasks.

The 7501's advantage in multi-core tests is expected given its 32 cores versus 16, but the margin is smaller than the core count suggests. This makes the 7501 a solid pick for multi-threaded server workloads where the extra cores provide a measurable but modest uplift. The 7351, despite having half the cores, stays competitive in multi-core thanks to its higher base clock, which helps sustain throughput in all-core loads.

For single-threaded performance, the 7501 again takes the lead, with slightly larger deltas of 7.4% to 7.5%. The higher boost clock of 3.00 GHz gives it an edge in tasks that rely on a single core, such as database transaction processing or lightly threaded application logic. The 7351's lower boost clock of 2.90 GHz means it cannot match the 7501 in this area, although its higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.00 GHz may help in sustained all-core operations where boost clocks drop.

There is no benchmark category where the 7351 comes out ahead. The data shows zero wins for the 7351 out of six head-to-head tests. This does not mean the 7351 is a poor processor; it simply means the 7501 is the faster part in every measured scenario. The 7351's closest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 7F32, which it edges by 0.1% in average score, and it sits within 1% of the Intel Core i9-7920X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X. So the 7351 is competitive with other mid-range server parts, but it loses clearly to its higher-core sibling.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications, while sharing many others. Here are the fields where the EPYC 7501 and EPYC 7351 diverge:

• Cores: EPYC 7501 has 32 cores; EPYC 7351 has 16 cores.
• Threads: EPYC 7501 has 64 threads; EPYC 7351 has 32 threads.
• Base clock: EPYC 7501 runs at 2.00 GHz; EPYC 7351 runs at 2.40 GHz.
• Boost clock: EPYC 7501 reaches 3.00 GHz; EPYC 7351 reaches 2.90 GHz.
• Part number: EPYC 7501 is PS7501BEVIHAF; EPYC 7351 is PS7351BEVGPAF.
• Average benchmark score: EPYC 7501 averages 6128; EPYC 7351 averages 5710.

All other recorded specifications are identical. Both use the same socket (AMD Socket SP3), architecture (Zen), codename (Naples), process node (14 nm), foundry (GlobalFoundries), transistor count (4,800 million), die size (213 mm²), cache hierarchy (96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, 64 MB L3 shared), memory support (DDR4, eight-channel, 170.6 GB/s bandwidth), ECC support, PCIe generation (Gen 3), TDP (170 W), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), and release date (June 28, 2017). Both also have unlocked multipliers and no integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 has 32 cores with 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7351 has 16 cores with 32 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7501 in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the EPYC 7501 leads by 7.3% each time, scoring 2135, 8898, and 21186 respectively, versus the EPYC 7351's 1989, 8291, and 19742.

Q: Does the EPYC 7351 have a higher base clock?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7351 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 7501's 2.00 GHz base clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, and both have ECC memory support.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The EPYC 7501 has an average benchmark score of 6128, while the EPYC 7351 averages 5710, making the 7501 about 7.3% higher overall.

Q: Are both chips from the same generation and process node?

A: Yes, both are from the EPYC 7001 series, use the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, and are built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation: choose the AMD EPYC 7501 if you need the fastest Cinebench performance, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. It wins all six head-to-head tests, and its average benchmark score of 6128 places it in the same league as the Intel Core i9-7940X, trailing by just 0.3%, and ahead of several other rivals. The 7501 is the better part for compute-heavy server or workstation workloads where every bit of rendering or simulation throughput matters.

The AMD EPYC 7351 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrower. It has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz, which can help in sustained all-core operations, and it still posts respectable scores, averaging 5710 and sitting within 1% of several competing parts like the Intel Xeon W-2175 and Intel Core i9-7920X. However, in every recorded benchmark, it falls behind the 7501, and the margins are consistent enough that there is no scenario in the data where the 7351 comes out on top.

For a builder deciding between these two, the choice hinges on whether the 7.3% performance uplift from the 7501 justifies its configuration. The 7501 offers double the cores and threads, which matters for workloads that scale with core count, even if the Cinebench scores show a smaller gap. The 7351 could be a reasonable alternative if the higher base clock is valuable for specific sustained loads, but the benchmark evidence does not support it as a faster chip in any test. The verdict from the database is straightforward: the EPYC 7501 is the superior processor in this pairing, and the EPYC 7351 is a lower-performing sibling with identical architecture and a lower average score.