AMD EPYC 7402 vs AMD EPYC 7502P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for the AMD EPYC 7502P and AMD EPYC 7402 paints a remarkably consistent picture. Across every single Cinebench test recorded in the database, the EPYC 7502P takes the win, and the margin is uniform at 11%. There is no test in which the EPYC 7402 comes out ahead, making this head-to-head comparison a clean sweep for the 32-core part.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the EPYC 7502P scoring 4374 against 3942 for the EPYC 7402. The 11% delta is repeated in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the 7502P records 18225 and the 7402 posts 16426. In the more demanding Cinebench R23 multicore test, the gap remains consistent: 43395 for the 7502P versus 39110 for the 7402. These numbers indicate that the additional 8 cores in the 7502P translate directly into a proportional throughput advantage, not just a theoretical one.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 7502P scores 617 versus 556 for the 7402. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2572 against 2318, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 6126 against 5521. Interestingly, both processors share the same 3.35 GHz boost clock, so the single-core edge is not a frequency story. The data suggests architectural or cache-related factors are at play, and the advantage is consistent at exactly 11% across all three single-core tests.

Looking at the broader database context, the EPYC 7502P holds an average benchmark score of 10512, while the EPYC 7402 averages 11312. That is an unusual inversion. The 7402 averages higher across the full benchmark suite in the database, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix: the 7402's average is supported by a wider range of workloads where its characteristics may align better, while the 7502P remains dominant specifically in Cinebench rendering workloads. The 7502P sits at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, and the 7402 also sits at the 66th percentile, so both are positioned identically in the overall distribution.

The nearest rival data reinforces the positioning of each chip. The 7502P is bracketed by the AMD EPYC 7D12 at -0.3%, the Intel Core i7-4790 at -0.4%, the Intel Xeon W-3175X at +1.4%, and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at +1.6%. The 7402 is flanked by the AMD EPYC 73F3 at -0.2%, the Intel Core i5-1145G7 at +0.3%, the AMD EPYC 7452 at +0.3%, and the Intel Core i3-1305U at +1%. These deltas show that both EPYC parts are tightly grouped with their nearest competitors, though the specific rival sets differ.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7502P wins every recorded Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, with a uniform 11% margin. That makes it the clear choice for rendering, 3D modeling, and any workload that scales with raw core count and per-thread performance. The 32 cores and 64 threads give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded tasks, and the single-core wins show it does not sacrifice responsiveness to get there.

The EPYC 7402, despite losing all head-to-head Cinebench matchups, posts a higher average benchmark score of 11312 across the full database, compared to 10512 for the 7502P. This indicates that the 7402 performs well in workloads outside the Cinebench suite, where the database records other benchmark types. For users whose workloads are not primarily Cinebench-based, the 7402 may hold its own or even excel, depending on the specific application profile.

The 7402 also offers a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.50 GHz for the 7502P. In sustained workloads that do not scale perfectly with core count, that higher base frequency can reduce latency and improve responsiveness. The 7402's L3 cache is organized differently as well: 32 MB per die with a total of 128 MB, versus the 7502P's 128 MB shared. This per-die layout can benefit workloads with localized data access patterns.

Both processors share the same 180 W TDP, the same AMD Socket SP3, the same eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, and the same 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Neither has an integrated GPU, and both are unlocked for multiplier adjustments. The 7402 has a launch MSRP of $1783, which can be stated once as a reference point.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the EPYC 7002 series, use the Zen 2 architecture, and carry the Rome codename. Both are built by TSMC on a 7 nm process node, and both support DDR4 memory with ECC, eight-channel memory buses, and PCIe Gen 4. The 7502P lists 128 lanes for PCIe Gen 4, while the 7402 lists 128 lanes as well, specified as CPU only.

The core counts differ significantly. The 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads. That is an 8-core, 16-thread gap. The 7502P's base clock is 2.50 GHz, lower than the 7402's 2.80 GHz, but both boost to 3.35 GHz. The TDP is identical at 180 W, which is notable given the 7502P packs more cores into the same power envelope.

The cache hierarchies are organized differently. The 7502P lists 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. The 7402 lists 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB across four dies. The die size figures reflect this: the 7502P lists a single 74 mm² die, while the 7402 lists 4x 74 mm². The transistor counts also differ, with the 7502P at 3,800 million and the 7402 at 15,200 million. The 7402's higher transistor count across its four dies explains its larger aggregate die footprint.

Both chips were released on the same date, 2019-08-06, and both remain in active production. The 7502P carries part number 100-000000045, while the 7402 uses 100-000000046. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are classified as server or workstation parts.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for Cinebench workloads: the AMD EPYC 7502P is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head tests by an identical 11% margin, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios. The 32-core, 64-thread configuration provides a meaningful throughput advantage over the 7402's 24 cores and 48 threads, and the single-core wins show the 7502P does not lag in lightly threaded tasks despite its lower base clock.

The 7402 is not without merits. Its higher base clock of 2.80 GHz can benefit latency-sensitive workloads, and its higher average benchmark score of 11312, versus 10512 for the 7502P, suggests it performs strongly in non-Cinebench applications. Its per-die L3 layout with 32 MB per die may suit workloads with localized data access. Both chips share identical TDP, memory bandwidth, and socket compatibility, so platform requirements do not differentiate them.

For users prioritizing Cinebench or similar rendering workloads, the 7502P is the clear pick. For users whose workloads are broader and include applications where the 7402's higher base clock and per-die cache layout matter, the 7402 may be the better fit. The 66th percentile ranking for both chips in the global database indicates they occupy similar overall performance tiers. The 7402's launch MSRP is $1783, a data point that can inform purchasing decisions.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P wins with a score of 43395, an 11% advantage over the EPYC 7402's 39110.

Q: Do both processors have the same boost clock?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7502P and EPYC 7402 boost to 3.35 GHz, though their base clocks differ at 2.50 GHz and 2.80 GHz respectively.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7502P has an average benchmark score of 10512, while the EPYC 7402 has an average of 11312.

Q: Are both processors built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, using the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename.

Q: What memory bandwidth do both support?

A: Both support eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.