AMD EPYC 7402 vs AMD EPYC 7D12 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the AMD EPYC 7402 wins every single recorded benchmark in this comparison. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7402 holds a consistent advantage over the EPYC 7D12, with delta percentages hovering between 7.2% and 7.3%. This is not a case of one chip dominating in multi-threaded workloads while the other takes single-threaded duties; the EPYC 7402 is uniformly faster in both categories.

In multi-core workloads, the EPYC 7402 scores 3942 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 16426 in R20 multicore, and 39110 in R23 multicore. The EPYC 7D12 counters with 3675, 15315, and 36465 respectively. The gap is roughly 7.3% in every multi-core test. That consistency suggests the advantage comes from a fundamental clock speed difference rather than any architectural edge, since both chips share the same Zen 2 Rome design.

Single-core results tell the same story. The EPYC 7402 posts 556 in Cinebench R15 singlecore, 2318 in R20 singlecore, and 5521 in R23 singlecore. The EPYC 7D12 trails with 518, 2162, and 5148. The deltas are 7.3%, 7.2%, and 7.2% respectively. If a workload depends on lightly threaded performance, the EPYC 7402 is the better choice based strictly on the recorded data.

The EPYC 7D12 does not win a single benchmark in this head-to-head. Its wins count is zero. However, that does not make it irrelevant. The EPYC 7D12 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, eight more cores and sixteen more threads than the EPYC 7402. Despite that core advantage, it still loses every multi-core test. That is a striking outcome. It means the EPYC 7D12's much lower base clock, recorded at 1100.00 MHz, severely limits its throughput compared to the EPYC 7402's 2.80 GHz base clock. The boost clocks are closer, 3.35 GHz for the EPYC 7402 versus 3.00 GHz for the EPYC 7D12, but the sustained performance difference is enough to flip all results.

For a workload that scales purely with core count and tolerates low clock speeds, the EPYC 7D12 could still be attractive for its core density. But the benchmark results show that in Cinebench, the EPYC 7402's higher clocks win out. The EPYC 7D12 is the chip you pick if you need 32 cores in an 85 W TDP envelope and can sacrifice per-core performance. The EPYC 7402 is the chip you pick when you want the best recorded performance in these tests.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture. They are AMD EPYC 7002 series parts, using Zen 2 cores under the Rome codename. The process node is identical: 7 nm, fabricated by TSMC. Both chips use the same AMD Socket SP3 platform. Transistor counts are the same at 15,200 million, and both use a four-die design with each die measuring 74 mm², for a total die size of 4x 74 mm².

Cache layouts are also identical. Each core has 64 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache. Each die has 32 MB of L3 cache, giving a total of 128 MB of L3 across the package. There is no 3D V-Cache on either part. Memory support matches as well: DDR4, eight-channel memory bus, and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes available from the CPU. Neither chip has integrated graphics.

The differences come down to core count, clocks, and power. The EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads, a base clock of 2.80 GHz, a boost clock of 3.35 GHz, and a TDP of 180 W. The EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads, a base clock of 1100.00 MHz, a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, and a TDP of 85 W. That is a dramatic TDP difference. The EPYC 7D12 draws less than half the thermal envelope of the EPYC 7402, 85 W versus 180 W, while offering more cores.

The base clock discrepancy is notable. The EPYC 7D12's base clock is recorded as 1100.00 MHz, which is extremely low for a server processor. This is clearly a power-optimized part. The boost clock of 3.00 GHz is much closer to the EPYC 7402's 3.35 GHz boost. This suggests the EPYC 7D12 can reach competitive speeds in short bursts but settles into a much lower sustained clock under full load. The benchmark results confirm that behavior, as the EPYC 7D12 trails in every test despite having more cores.

The EPYC 7402 launched on 2019-08-06 with a launch MSRP of $1783. The EPYC 7D12 launched later, on 2020-04-13, and has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7402 has the part number 100-000000046, while the EPYC 7D12 carries 100-000000044.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD EPYC 7402 outperforms the AMD EPYC 7D12 in every recorded benchmark. If the only consideration is raw Cinebench performance, the EPYC 7402 is the correct choice. It wins multi-core by roughly 7.3% and single-core by roughly 7.2% to 7.3%. The EPYC 7402 also sits in the 66th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 11312. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD EPYC 73F3, which scores 11334 and is 0.2% ahead, and the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and AMD EPYC 7452, both at 11279 and 0.3% behind.

The EPYC 7D12 also sits in the 66th percentile, but its average benchmark score is lower at 10547. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4790 at 10556, which is 0.1% ahead, and the AMD EPYC 7502P at 10512, which is 0.3% behind. The EPYC 7D12 is therefore a solid performer in its own right, but it is not in the same class as the EPYC 7402 according to these measurements.

Who should pick the EPYC 7D12? A deployment that needs 32 cores and 64 threads and is constrained by power and cooling. The 85 W TDP is a major advantage for dense server environments. The EPYC 7D12 offers more cores than the EPYC 7402, and if a workload is heavily parallel but insensitive to clock speed, the extra eight cores could theoretically help. However, the recorded Cinebench data shows that the EPYC 7402 beats it even in multi-core tests, so any core-count advantage is already negated in these workloads.

Who should pick the EPYC 7402? Anyone who values the best measured performance in this comparison. The EPYC 7402 wins every benchmark, has a higher base clock and boost clock, and while it consumes 180 W, it delivers proportionally better results. The EPYC 7402's average benchmark score of 11312 is 765 points higher than the EPYC 7D12's 10547, a difference of about 7.3%, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas.

The verdict is simple: for performance, the EPYC 7402. For core count per watt, the EPYC 7D12. But based strictly on the benchmark database, the EPYC 7402 is the faster processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Does the EPYC 7D12 ever beat the EPYC 7402 in any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark comparison, the EPYC 7402 wins all 6 tests. The EPYC 7D12 has 0 wins.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two chips?

A: The largest recorded gap is 7.3%, seen in Cinebench R15 multicore, R15 singlecore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore. The single-core R20 and R23 tests show a slightly smaller gap of 7.2%.

Q: Are these processors based on the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both are Zen 2 parts with the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process by TSMC, using the AMD Socket SP3 platform.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7402 has a TDP of 180 W, while the EPYC 7D12 has a TDP of 85 W. The EPYC 7D12 uses less than half the thermal envelope.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory and PCIe configuration?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both offer PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably uniform. Every test shows the EPYC 7402 ahead by roughly 7%. This consistency makes the comparison easy to interpret: the EPYC 7402 is simply the faster chip in this pairing.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7402 scores 3942 against the EPYC 7D12's 3675. That is a 7.3% advantage. This is a strong result because the EPYC 7D12 has 32 cores versus the EPYC 7402's 24 cores. Despite the core deficit, the EPYC 7402 wins by a clear margin. The higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 1100.00 MHz is the likely explanation.

Cinebench R15 singlecore shows the EPYC 7402 at 556 and the EPYC 7D12 at 518, again a 7.3% delta. Single-core performance is almost entirely clock-driven, and the EPYC 7402's boost clock of 3.35 GHz tops the EPYC 7D12's 3.00 GHz.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore test has the EPYC 7402 at 16426 and the EPYC 7D12 at 15315, a 7.3% lead. The single-core R20 test shows 2318 versus 2162, a 7.2% delta. The percentages remain tight across the board.

Cinebench R23 multicore delivers the highest absolute scores in the comparison. The EPYC 7402 reaches 39110, while the EPYC 7D12 posts 36465. The delta is 7.3%. In R23 singlecore, the EPYC 7402 scores 5521 and the EPYC 7D12 scores 5148, a 7.2% difference.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head results. The EPYC 7402 has an average benchmark score of 11312, placing it in the 66th percentile. Its closest rival in the database is the AMD EPYC 73F3 at 11334, which is 0.2% ahead. The EPYC 7D12 has an average benchmark score of 10547, also in the 66th percentile, with the Intel Core i7-4790 at 10556 sitting 0.1% ahead.

The EPYC 7D12's nearest rivals are notably slower than the EPYC 7402's nearest rivals. The EPYC 7D12 is 1.7% ahead of the Intel Xeon W-3175X and 1.9% ahead of the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N. Meanwhile, the EPYC 7402 is only 0.2% behind the EPYC 73F3 and 0.3% ahead of both the Intel Core i5-1145G7 and the AMD EPYC 7452. This places the EPYC 7402 in a higher performance tier overall.

In every single benchmark, the EPYC 7402 wins. The smallest margin is 7.2%, the largest is 7.3%. There is no workload category in this dataset where the EPYC 7D12 takes the lead. The conclusion from the recorded measurements is straightforward: the EPYC 7402 is the faster processor, and the EPYC 7D12 trades performance for a dramatically lower TDP and additional cores.