CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 73F3 and AMD EPYC 7402 are two server processors that, on paper, appear to target different segments. The 73F3 is a 16-core Milan part with a 240 W TDP, while the 7402 is a 24-core Rome part with a 180 W TDP. Despite these architectural and core-count differences, the benchmark data reveals an extraordinarily tight performance race. The average benchmark score for the 73F3 is 11334, placing it in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, while the 7402 scores an average of 11312, landing in the 66th percentile. The delta between them is a mere 0.2%, making this comparison less about raw capability and more about the specific trade-offs between core count, clock speed, and architecture generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 73F3, but the margins are razor-thin across every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 73F3 scores 3949 against the 7402’s 3942, a 0.2% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 557 versus 556, again a 0.2% lead for the 73F3. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 16458 for the 73F3 and 16426 for the 7402, with the same 0.2% gap. The R20 single-core scores are 2323 and 2318, respectively, maintaining the consistent 0.2% delta. In the most demanding test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 73F3 posts 39187, while the 7402 achieves 39110. The single-core R23 result is 5532 versus 5521. In every instance, the EPYC 73F3 wins, but by a margin so small it borders on statistical noise.

This consistency is notable. The 73F3 does not win by leveraging a single favorable workload; it wins by a uniform 0.2% across all six Cinebench iterations. The 7402, despite having 50% more cores (24 versus 16), cannot translate that core advantage into a multi-core win. The 73F3’s higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the 7402’s 3.35 GHz, appears to offset the core deficit almost exactly. The data suggests that in these specific rendering benchmarks, the per-core performance of the Zen 3 architecture in the 73F3 fully compensates for the raw core-count advantage of the Zen 2-based 7402. The result is a stalemate where neither processor can establish a meaningful lead.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark results, the EPYC 73F3 wins every measured workload in the dataset. The six Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multi-core rendering, all favor the 73F3. However, the magnitude of these wins is minimal, at 0.2% each. Therefore, the 73F3’s victory is more about consistency than dominance. It is the safer choice if the workload is exclusively Cinebench-based, but the practical difference is negligible.

The EPYC 7402, while losing all head-to-head benchmarks, does not appear without merit. It offers 24 cores and 48 threads, which is 8 cores and 16 threads more than the 73F3. The data does not include any tests that show a win for the 7402, but its 180 W TDP, lower than the 73F3’s 240 W, suggests it could be more power-efficient in sustained loads. Furthermore, its 128 MB of total L3 cache, split across four dies at 32 MB per die, is a different configuration than the 73F3’s 256 MB shared cache. For workloads that are not captured by Cinebench, such as those that scale heavily with core count and are not limited by per-core clock speed, the 7402’s additional cores could theoretically provide an advantage. The provided data, however, offers no benchmark to support this, so it remains a speculative benefit based on the core count difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct generations of AMD’s EPYC line. The EPYC 73F3 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, while the EPYC 7402 uses the older Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome. Both are manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The 73F3 packs 33,200 million transistors across eight dies, each measuring 81 mm². The 7402 contains 15,200 million transistors on four dies, each 74 mm². This difference in die count is critical: the 73F3 uses a chiplet design with more, smaller compute dies, while the 7402 uses fewer dies.

Cache configuration is a major differentiator. The 73F3 has a 256 MB shared L3 cache, which is a massive pool accessible by all 16 cores. The 7402 has a 32 MB L3 cache per die, totaling 128 MB, but this cache is not shared globally across all dies. This architectural choice in the 73F3 likely contributes to its ability to match the 7402’s core count advantage in multi-core tests. Both CPUs feature 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 layout is fundamentally different. Clock speeds also diverge significantly: the 73F3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz, versus the 7402’s 2.80 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. The 73F3’s higher clocks are a direct result of the more efficient Zen 3 core design.

Other specifications are identical. Both use the AMD Socket SP3, support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus, and offer a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and provide Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics. The TDP differs, with the 73F3 rated at 240 W and the 7402 at 180 W. The 73F3 launched on 2021-03-14, while the 7402 is older, launching on 2019-08-06. The 73F3’s launch MSRP is $3521, and the 7402’s launch MSRP is $1783.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a higher average benchmark score of 11334, compared to the AMD EPYC 7402’s 11312. The difference is a 0.2% gap.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The AMD EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7402 has 128 MB of total L3 cache, configured as 32 MB per die.

Q: Are both CPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 73F3 and the AMD EPYC 7402 are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7402’s 3.35 GHz.

Q: What is the TDP for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 has a TDP of 240 W, while the AMD EPYC 7402 has a TDP of 180 W.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, verdict: the AMD EPYC 73F3 is the faster processor in all tested Cinebench workloads. It wins every head-to-head comparison, though by a uniform 0.2% margin. For users whose primary concern is raw Cinebench performance, the 73F3 is the correct choice. Its higher clock speeds and larger shared L3 cache deliver a slight but consistent edge.

The AMD EPYC 7402 is not a poor performer; it is simply outmatched in these specific tests. Its 24-core configuration is a significant advantage in core count, but it fails to overcome the per-core efficiency of the 73F3. The 7402 does offer a lower TDP of 180 W, which could be a deciding factor in power-constrained environments. Furthermore, its launch MSRP of $1783 is lower than the 73F3’s $3521, making it a potentially more economical option for large-scale deployments where the performance difference is negligible. For workloads that favor core count over clock speed, and where the 73F3’s 0.2% lead is irrelevant, the 7402 remains a viable choice. The verdict depends on whether the user prioritizes the marginal benchmark win of the 73F3 or the lower power draw and core count of the 7402.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 73F3 | AMD EPYC 7402 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 180 W |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Milan | Rome |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 15,200 million |

| Die Size | 8x 81 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 32 MB (per die) / 128 MB total |

| Release Date | 2021-03-14 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $3521 | $1783 |