AMD EPYC 7401P vs AMD EPYC 7F32 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7401P and AMD EPYC 7F32 represent two distinct approaches to server processing within the same socket ecosystem, yet their benchmark data reveals a surprisingly one-sided performance relationship. The EPYC 7401P, a 24-core Naples part, consistently outperforms the 8-core Rome-based EPYC 7F32 across every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, despite the latter's newer architecture and higher clock speeds. This analysis examines the benchmark results, architectural divergences, and specification gaps that define this matchup.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a uniform picture: the AMD EPYC 7401P wins all six head-to-head comparisons, each by a delta of exactly 20%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 7401P scores 2384 against the 7F32's 1987, a 20% margin that reflects the substantial core-count advantage. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story, with the 7401P scoring 336 versus 280 for the 7F32, again a 20% lead. This is notable because the 7F32 has a higher base clock (3.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.00 GHz), yet still loses single-core performance by a significant margin.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds precisely. The 7401P achieves 9937 in multicore compared to 8281 for the 7F32, and 1402 versus 1168 in single-core. The R23 results continue the trend: 23660 versus 19718 in multicore and 3340 versus 2783 in single-core. In every instance, the delta is exactly 20%, suggesting a consistent performance differential driven by architectural efficiency rather than workload-specific quirks. The 7401P's average benchmark score of 5814 further cements its position, placing it 1.9% ahead of the 7F32's 5703 average.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the 7401P sits at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, with nearest rivals including the Intel Xeon E-2388G (avg score 5805, delta 0.2%), Intel Xeon W-2175 (avg score 5770, delta 0.8%), and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (avg score 5730, delta 1.5%). The 7F32 also occupies the 61st percentile, with rivals like the AMD EPYC 7351 (avg score 5710, delta -0.1%), Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (avg score 5730, delta -0.5%), and Intel Core i9-7920X (avg score 5673, delta 0.5%). Both processors occupy the same performance tier overall, yet the head-to-head data shows a clear hierarchy between them.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD EPYC 7401P for multi-threaded workloads. Its 24 cores and 48 threads deliver a 20% advantage across all Cinebench iterations, making it the superior choice for rendering, scientific computing, or any parallel processing task. The 7401P's wins are not marginal — they are consistent and substantial, spanning three generations of Cinebench tests in both single and multi-core modes.

For single-threaded performance, the story is more surprising. Despite the 7F32's newer Zen 2 architecture and higher clocks, the 7401P still leads by 20% in R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. This suggests that the 7401P's per-core efficiency, despite being based on the older Zen architecture, is significantly better than the 7F32's implementation. Users prioritizing raw single-thread speed would still choose the 7401P based on these numbers.

The 7F32 does have one clear advantage: its launch MSRP is $2100, though pricing considerations are outside the scope of this analysis. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the 7F32 loses every benchmark comparison. It remains a viable option only for workloads where its specific feature set — such as PCIe Gen 4 support or the larger 128 MB total L3 cache — provides tangible benefits that outweigh its 20% performance deficit. For most buyers, the 7401P is the data-supported choice.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD's EPYC line. The EPYC 7401P is built on the Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. It contains 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The EPYC 7F32, in contrast, employs the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. It packs 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration, reflecting the chiplet-based design of Rome.

The cache hierarchies differ substantially. The 7401P offers 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7F32 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. This total L3 advantage for the 7F32 is significant for workloads that benefit from large pooled caches, though it does not translate into benchmark wins here.

Socket compatibility is shared: both use AMD Socket SP3, and both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus. However, memory bandwidth differs, with the 7401P rated at 170.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s for the 7F32. PCIe capabilities also diverge: the 7401P uses Gen 3, while the 7F32 supports Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The 7F32's newer architecture brings these connectivity and bandwidth improvements, but they do not overcome the core-count deficit in the benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every key specification. Core and thread counts are the most dramatic: the 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads — a threefold difference in core count. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz for the 7401P and 3.70 GHz for the 7F32, with boost clocks at 3.00 GHz and 3.90 GHz respectively. The 7401P's TDP is 170 W, while the 7F32 draws 180 W.

Process node and foundry differ as noted: 14 nm GlobalFoundries for the 7401P versus 7 nm TSMC for the 7F32. Transistor counts are 4,800 million versus 15,200 million, and die sizes are 213 mm² versus 4x 74 mm². Cache configurations vary, with the 7401P having 96 KB L1 per core versus 64 KB for the 7F32, identical 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3 versus 128 MB total L3.

Memory bandwidth is higher on the 7F32 (204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s). PCIe generation differs (Gen 3 versus Gen 4, 128 lanes). The 7401P has an unlocked multiplier, while the 7F32 is locked. Release dates are separated by nearly three years: the 7401P launched on 2017-06-28, while the 7F32 launched on 2020-04-13. The 7F32 has a launch MSRP of $2100, while the 7401P has no recorded MSRP. Part numbers also differ: PS740PBEVHCAF for the 7401P and 100-000000139 for the 7F32.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7401P in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7401P scores 23660, which is 20% higher than the EPYC 7F32's score of 19718 in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test.

Q: Does the EPYC 7F32 have any advantage in cache size?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7F32 has a total L3 cache of 128 MB (32 MB per die), while the EPYC 7401P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7F32 also has a smaller L1 cache per core (64 KB versus 96 KB).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, compared to 3.00 GHz for the AMD EPYC 7401P. The 7F32 also has a higher base clock at 3.70 GHz versus 2.00 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7F32 supports 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the EPYC 7401P supports 170.6 GB/s. Both use eight-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark average?

A: The EPYC 7401P has an average benchmark score of 5814, which is 1.9% higher than the EPYC 7F32's average of 5703. Both occupy the 61st percentile among all CPUs.