AMD EPYC 7352 vs AMD EPYC 9184X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9184X and AMD EPYC 7352 represent two distinct generations of AMD server silicon, and the benchmark data shows a clear split between raw compute dominance and specialized throughput. The 9184X wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, often by double-digit margins, while the 7352 counters with decisive victories in data compression and encryption workloads. Despite the 7352’s higher core count and lower power envelope, the 9184X’s architectural advantages in single-thread performance and cache capacity prove decisive in most measured scenarios. Both processors sit at the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 68202 for the 9184X and 68118 for the 7352, a negligible 0.1% difference that belies the lopsided head-to-head results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9184X leads with an average benchmark score of 68202, while the AMD EPYC 7352 trails at 68118. The difference is a marginal 0.1%, as reflected in the nearestRivals data where each appears as the other’s closest competitor.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The 9184X scores 40515 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, against 34314 for the 7352. This represents an 18.1% advantage for the 9184X, consistent with its lead across all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, and R23).

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark win for either processor?

A: The 9184X dominates the PassMark physics test, scoring 6674 versus 2688 for the 7352, a 148.3% margin. For the 7352, its largest win is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 44426 against 37376, a 15.9% advantage.

Q: Does the 7352 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the 7352 wins two of the 17 head-to-head tests: PassMark data compression (660712 vs 614873, a 6.9% lead) and PassMark data encryption (44426 vs 37376, a 15.9% lead). These are its only victories.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The 9184X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 7352 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having 50% more cores and threads, the 7352 loses most multi-threaded benchmarks due to the 9184X’s per-core efficiency and higher clock speeds.

Q: How do their single-thread performances compare?

A: The 9184X achieves a PassMark single-thread score of 2822, versus 1979 for the 7352, a 42.6% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9184X scores 5719 against 4844, an 18.1% lead.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 9184X is built on the Zen 4 architecture with the Genoa-X codename, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It contains 90,160 million transistors across 8 dies, each 72 mm² in size. The 7352 uses the older Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process with 15,200 million transistors across 4 dies, each 74 mm². This generational leap explains the 9184X’s superior performance per core, despite having fewer cores.

Cache configurations differ dramatically. The 9184X features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7352 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. The 9184X’s L3 cache is six times larger, a critical advantage for workloads with large working sets.

Memory support diverges by generation. The 9184X uses DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 7352 relies on DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the 9184X offers more than double the memory bandwidth, which directly impacts data-intensive operations.

The processors also differ in PCIe capabilities. The 9184X supports Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7352 supports Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes. Socket compatibility follows suit: the 9184X uses AMD Socket SP5, whereas the 7352 uses AMD Socket SP3. Base and boost clocks favor the newer chip: the 9184X runs at 3.55 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, compared to 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost for the 7352. The 9184X carries a TDP of 320 W, while the 7352 draws 155 W.

The Verdict

The data indicates that the AMD EPYC 9184X is the superior choice for general compute performance, winning 15 of 17 benchmarks with an average score 0.1% higher than the 7352. Its advantages are pronounced in single-threaded tasks, where it leads by 42.6% in PassMark single-thread and 18.1% in Cinebench R23 single-core. Multi-threaded workloads also favor the 9184X, as evidenced by an 18.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and an 18.1% margin in PassMark multithread, despite the 7352 having 24 cores versus 16.

The 7352 is the pick only for workloads specifically reliant on data compression and encryption, where it leads by 6.9% and 15.9%, respectively. For any other measured task, the 9184X offers equal or better performance, with particularly stark differences in physics (148.3% lead) and prime number finding (54.5% lead). The 7352’s lower TDP of 155 W versus 320 W may appeal in power-constrained environments, but the data shows this does not translate into performance wins outside its two specialized categories.

Buyers seeking a balanced server processor with top-tier single-thread performance and massive cache should select the 9184X. Those running encryption-heavy or compression-heavy pipelines may find the 7352’s specialized wins compelling, but they must accept significant deficits elsewhere. The 9184X’s newer architecture, higher clocks, and larger cache make it the more versatile processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. Core count: 16 for the 9184X versus 24 for the 7352. Threads: 32 versus 48. Base clock: 3.55 GHz versus 2.30 GHz. Boost clock: 4.20 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP: 320 W versus 155 W. Socket: SP5 versus SP3. Architecture: Zen 4 versus Zen 2. Codename: Genoa-X versus Rome. Process node: 5 nm versus 7 nm. Transistors: 90,160 million versus 15,200 million. Die size: 8x 72 mm² versus 4x 74 mm².

Cache specifications vary by level. L1 cache: 64 KB per core for the 9184X, 96 KB per core for the 7352. L2 cache: 1 MB per core versus 512 KB per core. L3 cache: 768 MB shared versus 32 MB per die (128 MB total). Memory support: DDR5 versus DDR4. Memory bus: twelve-channel versus eight-channel. Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 5 with 128 lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes.

Release dates and pricing also differ. The 9184X launched on 2023-06-12 with a launch MSRP of $4928. The 7352 launched on 2019-08-06 with a launch MSRP of $1350. The 7352 has a part number (100-000000077), while the 9184X does not list one. Both are active production parts, both lack unlocked multipliers, and both target the server/workstation market segment with no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The 9184X sweeps all Cinebench tests with identical 18.1% margins in multi-core and 18% in single-core. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4083 versus 3458; in R15 single-core, 576 versus 488. R20 multi-core shows 17016 against 14411, and R20 single-core shows 2401 against 2034. R23 multi-core delivers 40515 versus 34314, with single-core at 5719 versus 4844. These consistent margins indicate the 9184X’s per-core advantage is uniform across Cinebench’s rendering workloads.

PassMark results are more varied. The 9184X wins PassMark extended instructions with a score of 43562 against 40203, an 8.4% lead. In floating point math, it scores 95476 versus 87969, an 8.5% advantage. Integer math favors the 9184X at 157483 versus 148605, a 6% margin. Random string sorting shows a 15.4% lead (79913 vs 69231). PassMark multithread delivers an 18.1% win (47665 vs 40370). The most dramatic result is in physics, where the 9184X scores 6674 against 2688, a 148.3% advantage. Prime number finding also heavily favors the 9184X: 465 versus 301, a 54.5% lead. Single-thread performance shows a 42.6% gap, with 2822 versus 1979.

The 7352’s two wins are notable for their magnitude. In data compression, it scores 660712 against 614873, a 6.9% lead. In data encryption, it achieves 44426 versus 37376, a 15.9% margin. These wins suggest the 7352’s higher core count (24 vs 16) helps in specific parallel workloads, though it cannot overcome the 9184X’s advantages elsewhere. The head-to-head total stands at 15 wins for the 9184X and 2 for the 7352.

Where Each One Wins

The 9184X is the clear winner in rendering and compute-heavy tasks. Its 18.1% margins across all Cinebench multi-core tests, from R15 to R23, indicate strong performance in 3D rendering, video encoding, and other CPU-bound creative workloads. The 148.3% lead in PassMark physics points to excellence in simulation and physics calculations, while the 54.5% advantage in prime number finding highlights strength in mathematical and cryptanalytic operations. The 42.6% single-thread lead makes it the better choice for lightly threaded applications like database queries or legacy software that relies on single-core performance. The 8.4% edge in extended instructions and 8.5% lead in floating point math further cement its position for scientific computing and financial modeling.

The 9184X also wins in memory-intensive scenarios due to its 768 MB L3 cache and DDR5 bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The 15.4% lead in random string sorting reflects faster data manipulation, and the 18.1% multithread win shows it handles parallel tasks efficiently despite fewer cores. Its 6% integer math lead covers general arithmetic workloads. For users running virtual machines or containerized services, the combination of high clock speeds (4.20 GHz boost), large cache, and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes makes the 9184X the more capable platform.

The 7352 wins specifically in data compression and encryption. Its 6.9% lead in data compression (660712 vs 614873) makes it suitable for file archiving, backup systems, and database compression tasks. The 15.9% advantage in data encryption (44426 vs 37376) positions it well for secure communications, VPN gateways, and storage encryption workloads. These wins likely stem from the 7352’s 24 cores providing more parallel execution units for these highly parallelizable operations, even at lower clock speeds. Its 155 W TDP also makes it more efficient in power-constrained data centers, though the benchmark data does not quantify this benefit.

For general-purpose server workloads, the 9184X is the better choice. For specialized compression and encryption pipelines, the 7352 offers targeted advantages. The 0.1% average score difference between the two processors masks the fact that the 9184X wins 15 of 17 tests, often by large margins. The 7352’s wins are isolated to two niches, and even there, the 9184X remains competitive, trailing by only 6.9% in compression and 15.9% in encryption. The data strongly favors the 9184X as the more balanced and capable processor.