AMD EPYC 73F3 vs AMD EPYC 7542 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, consistent picture across the entire Cinebench suite: the AMD EPYC 73F3 wins every single test, but by a razor-thin margin. In all six head-to-head comparisons, the 73F3 leads the EPYC 7542 by exactly 1.6%. That uniformity is notable — there is no workload category where the 7542 manages to claw back ground or flip the result.

Starting with multi-core performance, the 73F3 scores 3,949 in Cinebench R15 multi-core against the 7542's 3,886. The gap widens slightly in R20, where the 73F3 posts 16,458 versus 16,193. In R23 multi-core, the 73F3 reaches 39,187, while the 7542 trails at 38,555. These are close numbers, but the 73F3's advantage is consistent across every generation of the Cinebench test. A 1.6% lead in multi-core with 16 fewer cores is the headline story here.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. The 73F3 scores 557 in R15 single-core, 2,323 in R20 single-core, and 5,532 in R23 single-core. The 7542 counters with 548, 2,286, and 5,443 respectively. Again, the delta is exactly 1.6% in each test. The 73F3's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the 7542's 2.90 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, explain this edge in lightly threaded workloads.

What makes these results particularly interesting is the core count disparity. The 7542 packs 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the 73F3's 16 cores and 32 threads. Yet the 73F3 still manages to outperform it in multi-threaded rendering. That speaks directly to architectural efficiency — the Zen 3-based Milan design extracts more work per core than the Zen 2-based Rome silicon in the 7542. The 73F3's larger 256 MB shared L3 cache, versus the 7542's 128 MB, likely contributes to this outcome by reducing memory latency pressure in cache-sensitive workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same hierarchy. The 73F3 carries an average benchmark score of 11,334, placing it in the 67th percentile among all CPUs. The 7542's average is 11,152, good for the 66th percentile. That's a marginal overall gap — roughly 1.6% again — but it translates to a one-point percentile difference.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context for how each chip stacks against the broader market. The 73F3 sits within 0.2% of the AMD EPYC 7402 (11,312), 0.5% of the Intel Core i5-1145G7 (11,279), 0.5% of the AMD EPYC 7452 (11,279), and 1.2% of the Intel Core i3-1305U (11,200). The 7542, meanwhile, is 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U (11,176), 0.3% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9224 (11,118), 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y (11,191), and 0.4% behind the Intel Core i3-1305U (11,200). Neither chip dramatically outclasses its immediate competition; both land in a tight cluster of similar-performing server and workstation parts.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD EPYC 73F3 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded, but the margin is small enough that the choice between these two should hinge on workload characteristics rather than raw speed alone. The 73F3 wins all six head-to-head tests, yet the 1.6% delta in each case means neither chip will embarrass the other in real-world use.

For workloads that are heavily threaded and scale with core count, the EPYC 7542's 32-core configuration is not the advantage one might expect — the 73F3 actually beats it in multi-core Cinebench tests despite having half the cores. This suggests that if your software is sensitive to per-core performance, memory bandwidth, or cache size, the 73F3's Zen 3 architecture with 256 MB L3 cache will serve you better. The 73F3's higher clocks (3.50 GHz base, 4.00 GHz boost versus 2.90 GHz and 3.40 GHz) also give it a clear edge in single-threaded responsiveness.

However, the 7542 remains a viable option if you need more physical cores for highly parallel, throughput-oriented tasks where the 1.6% performance penalty is acceptable. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide headroom for virtualization or database workloads that benefit from raw core count, even if the per-core efficiency is lower. The 7542 also runs at a slightly lower TDP of 225 watts versus the 73F3's 240 watts, which may factor into dense server deployments.

The 73F3's launch MSRP is $3521. The 7542 has no listed launch MSRP in the data, so no direct pricing comparison is possible. If you prioritize single-thread performance, cache capacity, and clock speed, the 73F3 is the clear pick. If you need maximum core count and can tolerate a small multi-core deficit, the 7542 has its place.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins with a score of 39,187, versus the EPYC 7542's 38,555. That is a 1.6% advantage for the 73F3.

Q: How big is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 73F3 scores 5,532 while the 7542 scores 5,443. The 73F3 leads by 1.6%, identical to the multi-core delta.

Q: Does the EPYC 7542 win any benchmark?

A: No. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests — R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core — the 73F3 wins every one. The 7542 has zero wins in the comparison data.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 73F3 has an average benchmark score of 11,334, while the 7542 averages 11,152. The 73F3 sits in the 67th percentile of all CPUs, and the 7542 sits in the 66th.

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

A: The EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads — exactly double the 73F3's counts.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ significantly in core configuration and clock speeds. The EPYC 73F3 uses 16 cores and 32 threads, while the EPYC 7542 doubles that to 32 cores and 64 threads. This core count difference is the most obvious specification gap between them.

Clock speeds also favor the 73F3. Its base clock is 3.50 GHz, and its boost clock reaches 4.00 GHz. The 7542 operates at a 2.90 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost — a substantial 0.60 GHz deficit at both ends. This explains the 73F3's single-core wins despite the 7542's core advantage.

Thermal design power differs as well. The 73F3 draws 240 watts, while the 7542 runs at 225 watts. The 7542's lower TDP is notable given it has twice the cores, but the 73F3's higher clocks and newer architecture push its power envelope slightly higher.

The 73F3 was released on 2021-03-14, while the 7542 launched earlier on 2019-08-06. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 and are currently marked as Active in production status. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and neither includes integrated graphics.

The 73F3's part numbers are 100-000000321100-100000321WOF, while the 7542's is 100-000000075. The 73F3 has a launch MSRP of $3521; the 7542 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is a generation gap. The 73F3 uses Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan, while the 7542 is built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 7 nm process, and both are fabricated at TSMC's foundry.

The transistor counts tell a fascinating story. The 73F3 integrates 33,200 million transistors across a die size of 8x 81 mm². The 7542 uses 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The 73F3's much higher transistor count, despite having fewer cores, reflects the larger shared L3 cache and more complex Zen 3 core design.

Cache configurations differ sharply. The 73F3 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7542 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 128 MB of shared L3. The 73F3's L3 cache is double the size, which is a significant factor in its multi-core benchmark wins.

Both support DDR4 memory, eight-channel memory buses, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and ECC memory. PCIe support is Gen 4 for both, though the 73F3 specifies 128 lanes (CPU only) while the 7542 simply lists Gen 4.

The 73F3's higher L1 cache per core is actually smaller than the 7542's (64 KB versus 96 KB), but the 73F3 compensates with larger L3 and higher clocks. The 7542's Zen 2 architecture relies on a chiplet design with separate I/O die, while the 73F3's Zen 3 architecture integrates the cores and cache more tightly.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 73F3 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the data. It takes all three multi-core tests — R15, R20, and R23 — with a 1.6% margin each time. It also wins all three single-core tests with the same 1.6% delta. If your workload relies on Cinebench-style rendering performance, the 73F3 is the faster chip without exception.

The 73F3 is the better choice for single-threaded or lightly threaded applications. Its 4.00 GHz boost clock and 3.50 GHz base clock give it a substantial clock-speed advantage over the 7542. Combined with the larger 256 MB L3 cache, this makes the 73F3 well-suited for database queries, web serving, or any workload where per-core performance matters more than raw core count.

For workloads that are heavily parallel and scale linearly with cores, the 7542's 32-core and 64-thread configuration is the logical fallback, even though benchmark data shows it losing to the 73F3 in multi-core tests. The 1.6% deficit is small, and the 7542 offers double the core count for scenarios that might benefit from more threads even at lower per-thread efficiency. Its lower 225-watt TDP also makes it slightly easier to cool in dense server environments.

The 73F3's higher average benchmark score (11,334 versus 11,152) and higher percentile ranking (67th versus 66th) reinforce its overall performance advantage. For a new deployment where performance is the sole criterion, the 73F3 is the data-backed winner. For existing infrastructure that needs a drop-in upgrade with more cores and can accept a minor performance trade-off, the 7542 remains a reasonable option — just not one that wins any recorded benchmark.