AMD EPYC 7402 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3500X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a decisive picture: the AMD EPYC 7402 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all six comparisons. The Ryzen 5 3500X does not record a single victory in any shared test. The gap is consistent and substantial, with the EPYC 7402 leading by 71.4% in every benchmark where both chips appear. That uniformity is striking, as it holds across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402 scores 3942 against the Ryzen 5 3500X's 1128. The delta is 71.4%, meaning the EPYC delivers nearly three and a half times the rendering throughput. The single-core R15 result tells a similar story: 556 for the EPYC versus 159 for the Ryzen, again a 71.4% deficit. This is not a case where the desktop chip claws back ground in lightly threaded tasks; the server processor simply outruns it everywhere.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC 7402 posts 16426 in multi-core, while the Ryzen 5 3500X manages 4702. The single-core R20 result shows 2318 versus 663. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern: multi-core 39110 against 11196, and single-core 5521 against 1580. Every delta is 71.4%, which suggests the benchmark suite measures a consistent performance ratio between the two parts, regardless of thread count or workload intensity.

The database also records the Ryzen 5 3500X's standalone benchmarks, which give context but no direct comparison. Its average benchmark score is 12000, placing it in the 67th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7402 has an average score of 11312, sitting in the 66th percentile. Those averages are close, but the head-to-head results tell a different story. The EPYC's wins are not marginal; they are overwhelming in every shared test. The Ryzen's percentile is boosted by a wider range of benchmark tests, including 3DMark and Passmark entries, while the EPYC only has Cinebench results in the database.

The nearest rivals for the Ryzen 5 3500X include the Intel Xeon Bronze 3408U with an average score of 12019, a 0.2% lead, and the Intel Core i3-12100 at 12054, a 0.4% lead. The Intel Core i7-7700 sits at 11914, trailing by 0.7%. These are tight margins, indicating the Ryzen sits in a competitive cluster for its overall average. The EPYC 7402's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 73F3 at 11334, a 0.2% gap, and the Intel Core i5-1145G7 with the AMD EPYC 7452 both at 11279, a 0.3% lead. The EPYC's average is slightly lower than the Ryzen's, but that reflects the limited test set, not the head-to-head reality.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 2 architecture and are built on TSMC's 7 nm process node, but they diverge sharply in nearly every other physical and logical aspect. The Ryzen 5 3500X uses the Matisse codename, while the EPYC 7402 uses Rome. The Ryzen has 6 cores and 6 threads, a straightforward desktop configuration with no simultaneous multithreading. The EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads, quadrupling the core count and octupling the thread count.

The transistor counts reflect the scale difference. The Ryzen 5 3500X contains 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die. The EPYC 7402 packs 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies, a total die area of 4x 74 mm². The EPYC's design uses multiple dies to achieve its core count, while the Ryzen relies on a single die. This explains the physical footprint and the power envelope disparity.

Cache hierarchies differ markedly. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is configured differently. The Ryzen 5 3500X has 32 MB of shared L3 cache across the entire chip. The EPYC 7402 has 32 MB per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache. That is four times the Ryzen's L3 capacity, which matters for server workloads that repeatedly access large working sets.

Memory support is another major divergence. Both support DDR4 memory, but the Ryzen 5 3500X uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7402 uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s, four times the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Ryzen does not. For error-sensitive server tasks, ECC is a critical feature, and the EPYC's inclusion of it is a clear separator.

The PCIe lanes also differ drastically. The Ryzen 5 3500X provides Gen 4 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC 7402 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, more than five times the lane count. This matters for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network adapters. The Ryzen's socket is AM4, while the EPYC uses SP3. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, the EPYC does not. The Ryzen's TDP is 65 watts, the EPYC's is 180 watts, a nearly threefold increase that reflects the EPYC's higher core count and memory controllers.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows no benchmark wins for the Ryzen 5 3500X in direct comparisons; every head-to-head test goes to the EPYC 7402. However, the Ryzen's broader benchmark suite suggests its strengths lie in latency-sensitive, lightly threaded desktop tasks. Its 3DMark scores are recorded: 3853 with 16 threads, 1351 with 2 threads, 2644 with 4 threads, 3860 with 8 threads, 3817 with max threads, and 680 with a single thread. These numbers, while not compared against the EPYC, indicate a chip that scales reasonably with thread count but peaks early, likely due to its 6-core limit.

The Passmark results for the Ryzen show strong integer math performance at 32564, floating point math at 23095, and compression at 143701. Its single-thread score of 2502 is respectable for a desktop part. The EPYC 7402, with 48 threads, is built for throughput. Its Cinebench multi-core scores dwarf the Ryzen's: 3942 versus 1128 in R15, 16426 versus 4702 in R20, and 39110 versus 11196 in R23. These are workloads that scale with core count, and the EPYC's 24 cores simply overwhelm the Ryzen's 6.

The use-case split is clear from the data. The Ryzen 5 3500X is a desktop processor, marked as such in the database, with a 65 watt TDP and a single-die design. It suits everyday computing, light gaming, and tasks that respond to high clock speeds. Its boost clock of 4.10 GHz is higher than the EPYC's 3.35 GHz boost, which explains why its single-thread Cinebench scores, while lower in absolute terms, might still feel responsive in interactive use. The EPYC 7402 is a server and workstation part, with a 180 watt TDP, ECC support, and massive memory bandwidth. It is designed for virtualization, database workloads, scientific computing, and any task that can use 24 cores and 48 threads effectively.

The Ryzen's nearest rivals include desktop and server parts with similar average scores, suggesting it competes in a mainstream performance tier. The EPYC's rivals are other server chips and a few mobile processors, indicating its performance class is different despite the similar average. The Ryzen wins no head-to-head tests, but its lower TDP and single-die simplicity make it a fit for systems where power and space are constrained. The EPYC wins all head-to-head tests, but its power draw and server socket require a different class of platform.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field. Core count: 6 for the Ryzen, 24 for the EPYC. Threads: 6 versus 48. Base clock: 3.60 GHz for the Ryzen, 2.80 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clock: 4.10 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. TDP: 65 watts versus 180 watts. Socket: AM4 versus SP3. Codename: Matisse versus Rome. Generation: Ryzen 5 (Zen 2 Matisse) versus EPYC (Zen 2 Rome). Transistors: 3,800 million versus 15,200 million. Die size: 74 mm² versus 4x 74 mm².

L3 cache: 32 MB shared for the Ryzen, 32 MB per die with a total of 128 MB for the EPYC. Memory bus: dual-channel versus eight-channel. Memory bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. ECC memory: false for the Ryzen, true for the EPYC. PCIe lanes: Gen 4 with 24 lanes versus Gen 4 with 128 lanes. Market segment: Desktop versus Server/Workstation. Release date: 2019-09-23 for the Ryzen, 2019-08-06 for the EPYC. Launch MSRP: the Ryzen has none recorded, the EPYC is listed at $1783. Multiplier unlocked: true for the Ryzen, false for the EPYC. Part numbers: 100-000000158 for the Ryzen, 100-000000046 for the EPYC.

The shared specifications include the Zen 2 architecture, TSMC's 7 nm process, 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, DDR4 memory support, and no integrated graphics. Both are manufactured by AMD and both have active production status.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402 wins all three single-threaded Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 556 against the Ryzen's 159. In R20, it scores 2318 against 663. In R23, it scores 5521 against 1580. The delta is 71.4% in each case.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7402 in multi-threaded rendering?

A: The EPYC 7402 leads by 71.4% in every multi-threaded Cinebench test. In R15, it scores 3942 versus 1128. In R20, it scores 16426 versus 4702. In R23, it scores 39110 versus 11196.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Zen 2 architecture and are built on TSMC's 7 nm process. However, the Ryzen 5 3500X uses the Matisse codename with a single die, while the EPYC 7402 uses the Rome codename with four dies.

Q: Does the Ryzen 5 3500X support ECC memory?

A: No, the database records ECC memory support as false for the Ryzen 5 3500X. The EPYC 7402 supports ECC memory, which is listed as true.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Ryzen 5 3500X has a dual-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7402 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s, exactly four times the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 7402 has Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Ryzen 5 3500X has Gen 4 with 24 lanes, meaning the EPYC provides more than five times the lane count.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7402 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 5 3500X in every head-to-head benchmark recorded. The 71.4% lead across all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, leaves no room for interpretation. If the decision is based purely on benchmark scores, the EPYC 7402 is the stronger processor by a wide margin.

However, the appropriate choice depends on the intended use case, which the specification data clarifies. The Ryzen 5 3500X is a desktop part with a 65 watt TDP, a single 74 mm² die, and a dual-channel memory bus. It fits into an AM4 socket, has an unlocked multiplier, and does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7402 is a server and workstation processor with a 180 watt TDP, four dies totaling 4x 74 mm², an eight-channel memory bus, ECC support, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. It requires an SP3 socket and has a locked multiplier.

For a system that needs maximum multi-threaded throughput, massive memory bandwidth, ECC reliability, and high PCIe lane count for expansion, the EPYC 7402 is the only sensible pick. Its 24 cores and 48 threads dominate any workload that can utilize them. The Ryzen 5 3500X, with 6 cores and 6 threads, cannot compete in such scenarios, and the benchmark results confirm this.

For a desktop system focused on everyday tasks, the Ryzen 5 3500X has advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture. Its lower TDP of 65 watts means less heat and lower cooling requirements. Its single-die design simplifies the platform. Its higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 3.35 GHz, suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications, even though the Cinebench single-core scores favor the EPYC. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which the EPYC does not permit.

The percentile rankings are close: the Ryzen sits at 67, the EPYC at 66. The average benchmark scores are also similar, with the Ryzen at 12000 and the EPYC at 11312. This proximity masks the head-to-head results, which show a 71.4% gap in every shared test. The explanation lies in the test sets: the Ryzen has many more benchmarks recorded, including 3DMark and Passmark, which may lower its relative standing compared to the EPYC's purely Cinebench results.

Ultimately, the Ryzen 5 3500X is for users who need a capable desktop processor with modest power draw and a simple platform. The EPYC 7402 is for users who need server-grade throughput, ECC memory, and extensive I/O. The data shows no scenario where the Ryzen beats the EPYC in a direct benchmark, so the choice comes down to platform requirements and workload type, not performance head-to-head. The EPYC wins every measured test; the Ryzen wins on efficiency and desktop suitability, though those are not benchmark scores. For raw performance, pick the EPYC 7402. For a desktop system, the Ryzen 5 3500X remains a valid option, but not because it wins any comparison in the database.