AMD EPYC 7443P vs AMD EPYC 7F72 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7F72 and AMD EPYC 7443P are both 24-core server processors built on the same socket, yet benchmark data reveals they are fundamentally different tools. The 7443P, a Zen 3 Milan part, dominates the majority of workloads, while the older Zen 2-based 7F72 shows surprising strength in a few specialized areas. The data paints a clear picture of generational improvement, but also highlights that architectural quirks can still tip the scales in specific tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisively lopsided, with the AMD EPYC 7443P winning 14 of the 17 benchmark comparisons. The most striking victories for the 7443P come in the Cinebench suite, where it consistently outperforms the 7F72 by approximately 7.4% to 7.5% across both multi-core and single-core tests. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 7443P scores 48,433 against the 7F72’s 44,829, a 7.4% gap. Single-core performance shows the same pattern, with the 7443P scoring 6,837 versus 6,328 in Cinebench R23 single-core, a 7.4% advantage. This consistency across all Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental per-core performance advantage for the Zen 3 architecture, not just a clock speed boost.

The PassMark suite reveals even larger deltas in certain compute-heavy tasks. The 7443P’s lead expands dramatically in integer math, scoring 232,632 versus 181,103 for the 7F72 — a massive 22.2% difference. Floating point math also favors the 7443P by 16.5%, with scores of 129,932 against 108,437. Even in single-threaded PassMark tests, the 7443P is 18% ahead, scoring 2,907 versus 2,384. These numbers indicate that the Zen 3 core is not just clocked higher (4.00 GHz boost vs 3.70 GHz) but is also more efficient at executing instructions per cycle.

However, the 7F72 is not without its victories, and they are concentrated in three specific PassMark tests. The most dramatic is in physics simulation, where the 7F72 scores 6,459 against the 7443P’s 4,748 — a 36% advantage. This is a huge outlier and suggests the 7F72’s cache hierarchy or memory latency characteristics are better suited for physics calculations. The 7F72 also wins in prime number finding by 21.5% (498 vs 410) and in random string sorting by 7.2% (102,436 vs 95,581). These wins are puzzling given the 7443P’s dominance elsewhere, hinting that the 7F72’s larger 192 MB L3 cache (versus 128 MB on the 7443P) provides a specific advantage for certain data-intensive or pattern-recognition tasks.

The remaining PassMark tests show closer margins. Data compression is nearly a tie, with the 7443P ahead by only 1.5% (820,859 vs 808,795). Data encryption is similarly close, with the 7443P leading by 1.7% (57,263 vs 56,261). Extended instructions favor the 7443P by 2.6% (48,213 vs 46,936). These smaller deltas suggest that for memory-bandwidth-bound or simpler instruction workloads, the two processors are more comparable, with the 7F72’s larger cache partially compensating for its older architecture.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F72 has an average benchmark score of 85,072, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7443P’s average of 81,661. This is notable because the 7443P wins more individual tests, but the 7F72’s wins in physics and prime numbers are substantial enough to boost its overall average.

Q: How does the AMD EPYC 7443P compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 7443P’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-14900KS, with an average score of 81,127, a delta of just 0.7%. It also closely matches the Intel Xeon w5-3535X (81,115, 0.7% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 8940HX (81,103, 0.7% delta). This shows the 7443P is positioned in a highly competitive performance cluster.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two processors in any single test?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the AMD EPYC 7F72 is 36% ahead of the 7443P. The second-largest gap is in PassMark integer math, where the 7443P is 22.2% ahead of the 7F72.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7F72 and the AMD EPYC 7443P are in the 96th percentile when compared to all CPUs. This means both are in the top tier of processor performance, despite their different strengths.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443P has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, which is higher than the AMD EPYC 7F72’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz. This contributes to its single-threaded performance advantage.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 7443P?

A: The launch MSRP of the AMD EPYC 7443P is $1337. No launch MSRP is listed for the AMD EPYC 7F72 in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7443P is the clear winner for general-purpose server workloads and multi-threaded compute. Its 7.4% to 7.5% lead across all Cinebench versions indicates superior performance in rendering and 3D modeling tasks. The 22.2% lead in integer math and 16.5% lead in floating-point math make it the better choice for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any application that relies heavily on arithmetic operations. Its 18% lead in single-threaded PassMark tests also makes it more responsive for database queries or web serving where per-core latency matters.

The AMD EPYC 7F72, despite its overall lower average score, wins in three specific scenarios. Its 36% victory in PassMark physics is striking and suggests it is better suited for physics simulation, such as in engineering or gaming server environments. A 21.5% lead in prime number finding points to an advantage in cryptography or number-theory computations. The 7.2% win in random string sorting could be beneficial for data indexing or text-processing workloads. These wins all involve the 7F72’s larger 192 MB L3 cache, which likely allows it to keep more data on-die for these specific access patterns.

For data compression and encryption, the two are nearly equal, with the 7443P leading by just 1.5% and 1.7% respectively. This suggests that for storage servers or secure communication workloads, the choice between the two makes little practical difference. The 7443P’s lead in extended instructions (2.6%) is also minor, meaning workloads using advanced CPU instructions will see only a slight benefit from the newer part.

Specification Differences

The core counts are identical: both have 24 cores and 48 threads. However, the clock speeds differ significantly. The 7F72 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the 7443P has a lower base clock of 2.85 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz. This means the 7443P can reach higher peak speeds but idles at a lower frequency. The thermal design power (TDP) also differs, with the 7F72 rated at 240 W and the 7443P at 200 W, indicating the 7F72 consumes more power under load.

The cache configuration is another key differentiator. The 7F72 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and a large 192 MB shared L3 cache. The 7443P has a smaller 64 KB L1 cache per core and a 128 MB shared L3 cache. Both have 512 KB of L2 cache per core. Memory support is identical in capability: both support DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe support is also the same generation (Gen 4), though the 7443P is noted as having 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7F72’s lane count is not specified. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 and are unlocked.

The release dates differ by almost a year. The 7F72 was released on April 13, 2020, while the 7443P was released on March 14, 2021. The part numbers are also unique, and the 7443P is the only one with a listed launch MSRP of $1337.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental difference is the core architecture: the 7F72 is based on Zen 2, codenamed Rome, while the 7443P is based on Zen 3, codenamed Milan. Both are built on the same 7 nm process node by TSMC, but the transistor count tells a story of significant change. The 7F72 has 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die. The 7443P has 16,600 million transistors spread across 4x 81 mm² dies. This chiplet design allows the 7443P to pack more transistors, which contributes to its higher performance per clock.

The L1 cache difference (96 KB per core on the 7F72 vs 64 KB per core on the 7443P) is an architectural choice. The Zen 2 design uses a larger L1, while Zen 3 rebalanced the cache hierarchy, reducing L1 but improving the L3 design. The L3 cache is also halved on the 7443P (128 MB vs 192 MB), yet the 7443P still outperforms in most tests, showing that Zen 3’s core efficiency outweighs the raw cache size advantage of Zen 2. The 7443P also belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, while the 7F72 has no series designation in the data.

The Verdict

The data suggests that the AMD EPYC 7443P is the superior processor for the vast majority of server and workstation applications. Its consistent ~7.4% lead in Cinebench and its enormous 22.2% lead in integer math make it the clear choice for general compute, virtualization, and multi-threaded rendering. The 7443P’s higher boost clock and Zen 3 architecture deliver a tangible performance uplift that is hard to ignore, and its lower 200 W TDP makes it more power-efficient.

The AMD EPYC 7F72 should be considered only for very specific workloads where its unique strengths are critical. If the workload involves heavy physics simulation, prime number calculations, or random string sorting, the 7F72’s 36%, 21.5%, and 7.2% respective wins could translate to real-world performance gains. Its larger 192 MB L3 cache is clearly an advantage in these niche areas. However, these are narrow use cases. For a buyer looking at the average benchmark score, the 7F72 actually leads at 85,072 vs 81,661, but this is skewed by its outlier wins.

Ultimately, the 7443P is the more versatile and generally faster processor, winning 14 of 17 head-to-head tests. The 7F72 is a specialist that excels in a few areas but falls behind in the broader picture. The 7443P’s status as a Zen 3 part with a higher boost clock makes it the safer, more future-proof choice for mixed workloads, while the 7F72 is only advisable if the specific benchmark wins align perfectly with the application’s demands.