AMD EPYC 7402 vs AMD EPYC 9224 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402 and AMD EPYC 9224 present a fascinating generational clash, both built around 24 cores and 48 threads, yet separated by three years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data reveals a surprising outcome: despite the newer platform, the older EPYC 7402 consistently edges out the EPYC 9224 across every single Cinebench test. This analysis will dissect the numbers, the architectural shifts, and what these results mean for a server buyer looking strictly at the data.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the AMD EPYC 7402 is the faster processor for Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with a lead ranging from 1.7% to 1.8% over the EPYC 9224. This is a narrow but consistent victory. The EPYC 7402’s higher base clock of 2.80 GHz, compared to the EPYC 9224’s 2.50 GHz, appears to be a decisive factor in these tests, despite the newer chip’s higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.35 GHz.

The data suggests that for compute tasks heavily reliant on sustained all-core throughput, like the multi-threaded Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7402’s higher base frequency provides a tangible advantage. The EPYC 9224, with its Zen 4 architecture and faster boost clock, may show its strengths in other scenarios, but in this specific benchmark suite, it is the runner-up. For buyers prioritizing the latest platform features like DDR5 or PCIe Gen 5, the EPYC 9224 is the clear choice. However, for raw Cinebench performance, the data points firmly to the EPYC 7402.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is substantial. The EPYC 7402 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed "Rome," and is part of the EPYC 7002 series. It is manufactured on a 7 nm process node at TSMC, packing 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies. Its cache layout is distinct, with 512 KB of L2 cache per core and a total of 128 MB of L3 cache organized as 32 MB per die.

In contrast, the EPYC 9224 is a Zen 4 part, codenamed "Genoa," from the newer EPYC 9004 series. It uses a more advanced 5 nm process node, also from TSMC, and houses 26,280 million transistors across four 72 mm² dies. The cache hierarchy has evolved, with the L2 cache doubling to 1 MB per core. The L3 cache is now listed as 64 MB shared, but the total L3 figure is not provided in the data. This represents a significant change from the 7402's 128 MB total L3.

The platforms themselves are entirely different. The EPYC 7402 uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, and offers a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC 9224 moves to the newer AMD Socket SP5 platform, supporting DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, which more than doubles the theoretical bandwidth to 460.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, and both offer the same number of PCIe lanes (128) from the CPU, but the 9224 features PCIe Gen 5 connectivity while the 7402 is limited to Gen 4.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark suite shows a clean sweep for the EPYC 7402, but the margin of victory is small. The EPYC 7402 wins by 1.8% in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core tests, and by 1.7% to 1.8% in the multi-core variants. This indicates that the 7402's advantage is not workload-specific within Cinebench but is a general performance edge, likely stemming from its higher base clock.

The EPYC 9224’s strengths are not visible in these benchmark numbers. Its architectural advantages, such as the newer Zen 4 core, faster boost clock, and significantly higher memory bandwidth, do not translate into a win here. The data implies that for this specific benchmark suite, the EPYC 9224 cannot leverage its platform features. Its wins would presumably come in workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth or can utilize the higher boost clock for bursty single-threaded tasks, but those are not represented in the provided Cinebench scores.

Therefore, the EPYC 7402 wins in every measurable category provided. The EPYC 9224’s potential wins are theoretical, based on its specification advantages in memory and PCIe, but the benchmark data does not support a performance win for it in any of the six tests.

FAQ

Q: The EPYC 9224 is newer, so why does it score lower in Cinebench?

A: The data shows the EPYC 7402 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. Its higher base clock of 2.80 GHz, compared to the 2.50 GHz on the EPYC 9224, likely contributes to this consistent, albeit small, advantage in these tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has a higher boost clock at 3.70 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7402 boosts to 3.35 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC 7402 still wins in single-core Cinebench tests.

Q: What are the biggest architectural differences between the two?

A: The EPYC 7402 uses the Zen 2 architecture on a 7nm process, while the EPYC 9224 uses Zen 4 on a 5nm process. They also differ in platform, with the 7402 on Socket SP3 with DDR4 and the 9224 on Socket SP5 with DDR5.

Q: Is the EPYC 9224 ever faster than the EPYC 7402?

A: In the six Cinebench benchmarks provided, the EPYC 7402 wins all of them. The EPYC 9224 does not have a single recorded win in this data set.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The EPYC 9224 offers a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s over a twelve-channel DDR5 bus, whereas the EPYC 7402 provides 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7402 and the EPYC 9224 have a percentileVsAllCpus score of 66, indicating they are ranked similarly among all CPUs in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent. The AMD EPYC 7402 wins every single test, but the margins are narrow. In Cinebench R15, the 7402 scores 3942 points in the multi-core test against the 9224’s 3874, a 1.8% lead. The single-core test sees a similar story: 556 versus 546, again a 1.8% advantage for the 7402.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The multi-core score for the 7402 is 16426, while the 9224 manages 16144, representing a 1.7% difference. In the single-core R20 test, the 7402 wins with 2318 points over the 9224’s 2278, another 1.8% margin. The largest absolute gap is in the multi-core R23 test, where the 7402 scores 39110 and the 9224 scores 38439, a 671-point difference that equates to a 1.7% lead. The single-core R23 test also goes to the 7402, 5521 versus 5426, a 1.8% difference.

The data tells a clear story: the EPYC 7402 has a small but decisive performance advantage in Cinebench across the board. The 1.7% to 1.8% delta is consistent, suggesting a fundamental clock speed advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. With six wins for the 7402 and zero for the 9224, the head-to-head results are unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification except for core count, threads, and TDP class. Here is a breakdown of the key differences:

• Architecture: The EPYC 7402 is Zen 2 (Rome), while the EPYC 9224 is Zen 4 (Genoa).
• Process Node: The 7402 uses a 7 nm process, while the 9224 uses a 5 nm process.
• Socket: The 7402 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 9224 uses AMD Socket SP5.
• Base Clock: The 7402 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz, which is higher than the 9224’s 2.50 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The 9224 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, which is higher than the 7402’s 3.35 GHz.
• L2 Cache: The 7402 has 512 KB per core, while the 9224 has double that at 1 MB per core.
• L3 Cache: The 7402 has a total of 128 MB (32 MB per die), while the 9224 is listed as having 64 MB shared.
• Memory Support: The 7402 supports DDR4, while the 9224 supports DDR5.
• Memory Bus: The 7402 has an eight-channel bus, while the 9224 has a twelve-channel bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The 7402 offers 204.8 GB/s, while the 9224 offers 460.8 GB/s.
• PCIe Support: The 7402 offers PCIe Gen 4, while the 9224 offers PCIe Gen 5.
• Transistors: The 7402 has 15,200 million transistors, while the 9224 has 26,280 million.
• Release Date: The 7402 was released in August 2019, while the 9224 was released in November 2022.