AMD EPYC 7402P vs AMD EPYC 7F52 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The 7402P offers 50% more cores and threads.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7402P wins every single-core benchmark in the database. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5251 versus 4958 for the 7F52, a 5.6% advantage. The lead is consistent across R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: Which CPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The EPYC 7F52 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The EPYC 7402P runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. The 7F52 is faster on paper, yet the 7402P still wins all benchmark tests.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between them?

A: The EPYC 7F52 has a TDP of 240 watts, while the EPYC 7402P has a TDP of 180 watts. The 7402P draws less power despite having more cores.

Q: Are they based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Zen 2 (Rome) architecture, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 3,800 million, and the die size is the same at 74 mm². They also share the same socket, AMD Socket SP3, and both lack an unlocked multiplier.

The key architectural difference lies in core count and cache allocation. The EPYC 7F52 packs 16 cores with 256 MB of shared L3 cache, giving each core access to a large pool of cache. The EPYC 7402P has 24 cores but only 128 MB of shared L3 cache, half the total L3 capacity. Per-core L1 and L2 caches are identical: 96 KB and 512 KB per core, respectively.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The 7F52 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the 7402P runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. This means the 7F52 has a 25% higher base clock and a 16.4% higher boost clock. Despite this clock advantage, the 7402P consistently outperforms it in every recorded benchmark.

Memory support is identical: DDR4 with eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC support. PCIe capabilities match at Gen 4, though the 7402P explicitly lists 128 lanes (CPU only) while the 7F52 simply states Gen 4. Both target the server and workstation market segment, and both are listed as Active in production status.

The release dates differ by about eight months. The EPYC 7402P launched on 2019-08-06, while the EPYC 7F52 launched on 2020-04-13. The 7F52 appears to be a higher-clocked, lower-core-count variant introduced later, while the 7402P is the earlier, higher-core-count part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the EPYC 7402P wins all six recorded benchmark comparisons. There are zero wins for the EPYC 7F52. The margin is remarkably consistent across every test, hovering around 5.6% to 5.7%.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 7402P scores 3749 against 3540 for the 7F52, a 5.6% lead. The R15 single-core test shows 529 versus 499, a 5.7% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 15621 versus 14751, again 5.6% ahead for the 7402P. The R20 single-core test shows 2205 versus 2082, also 5.6%.

Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern. The multicore test yields 37195 for the 7402P and 35123 for the 7F52, a 5.6% margin. The single-core test shows 5251 versus 4958, another 5.6% lead. Across all six tests, the 7402P maintains a nearly identical performance advantage.

The database also includes a Geekbench result for the 7402P only: 10476 multicore and 1204 single-core. No comparable Geekbench data exists for the 7F52 in the record.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The 7F52 has an average score of 10159, while the 7402P averages 9529. Interestingly, the 7F52 has a higher average score despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the average includes different benchmark suites, and the 7F52's nearest rivals are all Xeon processors with average scores between 10230 and 10347, within 0.7% to 1.8% of its own average.

The 7402P's nearest rivals include a mix of Intel Xeon and consumer parts. Its average of 9529 sits just 0.4% above the Core i7-7700HQ (9493) and 1.1% above the Atom x7835RE (9430), while trailing the Core i5-1035G1 (9684) by 1.6%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7F52 | AMD EPYC 7402P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 24 |

| Threads | 32 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.35 GHz |

| TDP | 240 W | 180 W |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |

| Release Date | 2020-04-13 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not available | $1280 |

| Part Number | 100-000000140100-000000140WOF | 100-000000048 |

| Series | null | EPYC 7002 series |

| Geekbench Data | None recorded | Multicore 10476, Singlecore 1204 |

Identical specifications include socket (AMD Socket SP3), architecture (Zen 2, Rome), process node (7 nm TSMC), transistor count (3,800 million), die size (74 mm²), L1 cache (96 KB per core), L2 cache (512 KB per core), memory type (DDR4), memory bus (eight-channel), memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), ECC support (true), PCIe generation (Gen 4), integrated graphics (none), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), and multiplier unlock (false).

The Verdict

The data is decisive. The EPYC 7402P wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with a consistent 5.6% margin across all Cinebench tests. The 7F52's higher clock speeds (3.90 GHz boost versus 3.35 GHz boost) and larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 128 MB) do not translate into benchmark victories. Instead, the 7402P's 24 cores versus 16 cores, combined with its lower TDP of 180 watts versus 240 watts, delivers superior performance in every recorded workload.

The 7F52 does hold one statistical advantage: its average benchmark score of 10159 exceeds the 7402P's 9529. This likely reflects differences in the benchmark suites used to compute the averages, since the head-to-head data shows the 7402P winning all shared tests. The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the 7F52 at the 66th percentile and the 7402P at the 65th percentile of all CPUs.

For the 7402P, the launch MSRP is $1280. The 7F52 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are currently listed as Active in production status.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC 7402P for better performance across all measured benchmarks, lower power consumption, and a higher core count. The EPYC 7F52 offers no benchmark advantage in any test, despite its clock speed and cache capacity advantages.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 7402P wins in:

• All Cinebench R15 multicore tests (3749 versus 3540, 5.6% faster)
• All Cinebench R15 single-core tests (529 versus 499, 5.7% faster)
• All Cinebench R20 multicore tests (15621 versus 14751, 5.6% faster)
• All Cinebench R20 single-core tests (2205 versus 2082, 5.6% faster)
• All Cinebench R23 multicore tests (37195 versus 35123, 5.6% faster)
• All Cinebench R23 single-core tests (5251 versus 4958, 5.6% faster)
• Lower power consumption: 180 W TDP versus 240 W TDP
• Higher core and thread count: 24 cores and 48 threads versus 16 cores and 32 threads
• Available Geekbench data: 10476 multicore and 1204 single-core

AMD EPYC 7F52 wins in:

• Higher base clock: 3.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz
• Higher boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 3.35 GHz
• Larger L3 cache: 256 MB versus 128 MB
• Higher average benchmark score: 10159 versus 9529
• Slightly better percentile ranking: 66th versus 65th percentile

The 7402P is the clear choice for workloads that benefit from more cores and threads, which includes virtually all modern multi-threaded server and workstation applications. Its 5.6% performance advantage in every shared benchmark test, combined with a 60-watt lower TDP, makes it the superior all-around processor.

The 7F52's clock speed and cache advantages suggest it might be intended for workloads sensitive to per-core cache capacity or raw clock speed, but the recorded benchmark data does not support this. In every test where both processors were measured under identical conditions, the 7402P won. The 7F52's only numerical advantages are its clock speeds, cache size, and a higher average score that likely reflects different benchmark inclusion.

For practical purposes, the EPYC 7402P is the better buy for anyone comparing these two processors side by side. It outperforms the 7F52 in all measured categories while consuming less power and offering more cores. The 7F52's higher clocks and larger cache do not compensate for its lower core count in any recorded benchmark.