CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 73F3 and AMD EPYC 7452 are both server-class processors on the same SP3 socket, but they represent different design philosophies from AMD. The 73F3 is a 16-core Zen 3 part with a high base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz, while the 7452 is a 32-core Zen 2 part with a lower base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost of 3.35 GHz. Despite the 7452 having twice the core count, the benchmark data shows the 73F3 wins every single Cinebench test by a narrow 0.5% margin, highlighting the architectural efficiency of Zen 3. The 73F3 carries a launch MSRP of $3521, while the 7452 has no listed launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7452 has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the 16 cores and 32 threads of the AMD EPYC 73F3.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The EPYC 7452 is significantly lower, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz.

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The EPYC 73F3 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 39187 versus 38993 for the 7452, a 0.5% delta. The same 0.5% margin applies to Cinebench R20 and R15 multi-core tests.

Q: What about single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 73F3 also wins all single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5532 against 5505, again a 0.5% advantage. The R20 and R15 single-core tests follow the same pattern.

Q: Do these CPUs use the same architecture?

A: No. The EPYC 73F3 uses Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan, while the EPYC 7452 uses Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. Both are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC.

Q: How do their cache sizes differ?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a large 256 MB shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7452 has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 128 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split between these two processors comes down to generation and design goals. The EPYC 73F3 is based on the Zen 3 microarchitecture, codenamed Milan, while the EPYC 7452 uses the older Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome. Both are fabricated on the same 7 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts tell a story of different implementations. The 73F3 packs 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies of 81 mm² each, whereas the 7452 uses just 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die.

Cache hierarchy is a major differentiator. The 73F3 offers 256 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 128 MB found on the 7452. However, the 7452 has a larger L1 cache per core at 96 KB versus 64 KB on the 73F3. Both share 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The larger L3 on the 73F3 is a direct result of the Zen 3 design, which unified the cache architecture for lower latency and better efficiency, even with fewer physical cores.

Another architectural difference lies in PCIe support. The 73F3 lists PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7452 simply lists PCIe Gen 4 without a specific lane count in the data. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and identical 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, and neither has integrated graphics. The 73F3 was released in March 2021, while the 7452 came earlier in August 2019, reflecting a generational gap that influences their performance characteristics.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for a specific use case. The AMD EPYC 73F3 is the superior choice for workloads that depend on raw single-threaded speed and lower latency, as evidenced by its wins across all Cinebench tests. Its 4.00 GHz boost clock and 256 MB of L3 cache give it an edge in lightly threaded tasks and cache-sensitive applications. The 7452, despite having twice the cores, cannot overcome the architectural advantage of Zen 3 in these benchmarks.

However, the EPYC 7452 should not be dismissed. Its 32 cores and 64 threads make it a more logical pick for heavily parallel workloads where the 73F3’s higher clock speed is less relevant. The data shows the 7452 nearly matches the 73F3 in multi-core scores, only 0.5% behind, which is remarkable given its lower clocks and older architecture. That parity suggests the 7452’s extra cores compensate for its per-core weakness.

For a builder prioritizing maximum core count per socket and lower power draw (155 W TDP versus 240 W), the 7452 is the pragmatic choice. For a builder who needs the fastest possible single-core performance and can tolerate higher power consumption, the 73F3 wins outright. The benchmark results indicate the 73F3 is faster in every measured test, but the 7452 offers competitive multi-core throughput with double the core count. Choose based on whether your workload scales with cores or demands per-thread speed.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the EPYC 7452 doubles that with 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds favor the 73F3: base clock is 3.50 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, and boost clock is 4.00 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. Thermal design power also differs substantially, with the 73F3 rated at 240 W and the 7452 at a more modest 155 W.

Cache configurations are distinct. The 73F3 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3. The 7452 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. Transistor counts vary wildly: 33,200 million for the 73F3 versus 3,800 million for the 7452, with die sizes of 8x 81 mm² and 74 mm² respectively.

Memory support is identical: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC. PCIe differs in detail, the 73F3 specifies Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7452 just lists Gen 4. The 73F3 has a launch MSRP of $3521, while the 7452 has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates are March 2021 for the 73F3 and August 2019 for the 7452. Both are active in production, use the AMD Socket SP3, and have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 73F3, winning all six Cinebench tests with identical 0.5% deltas. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 73F3 scores 3949 against 3930 for the 7452. The single-core R15 test is similarly close: 557 versus 554. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 16458 for the 73F3 and 16377 for the 7452, while single-core comes in at 2323 versus 2312.

The most recent Cinebench R23 results follow the same pattern. Multi-core shows 39187 for the 73F3 and 38993 for the 7452, a difference of just 194 points. Single-core in R23 is 5532 versus 5505. Every test favors the 73F3 by the same 0.5% margin, which is notable for consistency. The 7452’s 32 cores do not translate into a multi-core victory; instead, the 73F3’s higher clocks and larger L3 cache deliver a narrow but universal win.

Looking at overall averages, the 73F3 has an average benchmark score of 11334, while the 7452 sits at 11279. This places the 73F3 in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, one point above the 7452’s 66th percentile. In the nearest rivals list, the 73F3 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7402 and 0.5% ahead of both the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and the 7452. The 7452, conversely, is 0.3% behind the EPYC 7402 and 0.5% behind the 73F3.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 73F3 wins in every benchmark category measured here, but the nature of those wins matters. Its strengths lie in single-threaded performance, where the 4.00 GHz boost clock and 256 MB L3 cache provide a clear advantage. The 0.5% lead in single-core tests across all Cinebench versions indicates that any workload relying on per-thread speed, such as database queries, legacy applications, or lightly threaded simulations, will benefit from the 73F3. Its higher TDP of 240 W suggests it is designed for maximum frequency at the cost of power efficiency.

The EPYC 7452, while losing every head-to-head test, offers a different value proposition. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide massive parallel throughput, and the fact that it comes within 0.5% of the 73F3 in multi-core tests despite a 1.30 GHz lower base clock is a testament to core count scaling. For workloads like virtualization, container hosting, or batch processing that scale linearly with cores, the 7452’s extra threads can be leveraged, even if the per-core speed is lower. Its 155 W TDP also indicates lower power consumption, which can be a deciding factor in dense server deployments.

The data suggests a split based on workload type. The 73F3 is the winner for latency-sensitive, high-frequency tasks where a 4.00 GHz boost is indispensable. The 7452 is the winner for throughput-oriented environments where more cores are better, and the modest 0.5% multi-core deficit is an acceptable trade-off for double the thread count and lower power draw. The 73F3 edges out the 7452 in absolute performance, but the 7452 remains a compelling choice for core-heavy applications.