AMD EPYC 7452 vs AMD EPYC 7502P Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P scores 43,395 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD EPYC 7452 scores 38,993. The 7502P leads by 10.1% in this test.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7452 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz. Both share the same boost clock of 3.35 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both feature 32 cores and 64 threads. They also share the same L3 cache of 128 MB shared, as well as identical L1 and L2 cache configurations.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the EPYC 7452 wins?

A: No. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests recorded, the EPYC 7502P wins every single one, with no wins recorded for the EPYC 7452.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7452 has a TDP of 155, while the EPYC 7502P has a TDP of 180. The higher TDP of the 7502P corresponds with its higher base clock.

Q: Do the two chips belong to the same generation and architecture?

A: Yes, both are part of the EPYC 7002 series, use the Zen 2 (Rome) architecture, are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, and were released on the same date.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture: Zen 2, codenamed Rome, manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors and a die size of 74 mm². They share the same socket (AMD Socket SP3), the same eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, the same 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and identical cache hierarchies: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3.

The differences in architecture are therefore confined to operating characteristics rather than structural design. The EPYC 7452 runs a base clock of 2.20 GHz, whereas the EPYC 7502P runs a base clock of 2.50 GHz. Both boost to 3.35 GHz. This 0.30 GHz base clock advantage for the 7502P is the primary architectural distinction between the two parts.

The TDP reflects this operating difference: the EPYC 7452 is rated at 155, while the EPYC 7502P is rated at 180. This 25-point TDP gap is directly attributable to the higher sustained base frequency of the 7502P. The boost behavior appears identical, which means the 7502P's advantage is most pronounced in sustained workloads that hold near base clocks.

Both processors are unlocked in terms of multiplier? No, neither has an unlocked multiplier. They are server parts designed for fixed operating points. The production status for both is Active, and both use the same part family, with the 7452's part number being 100-000000057 and the 7502P's being 100-000000045.

The "P" suffix on the 7502P typically indicates a single-socket optimized variant in AMD's naming scheme, but the recorded data shows both share the same socket, memory support, and feature set. The real differentiator is the base clock and the resulting TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the EPYC 7502P wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The margin is remarkably consistent, hovering around 10% in every workload.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7502P scores 4,374 against the 7452's 3,930, a delta of -10.2% from the perspective of the 7452. The single-core R15 test shows 617 versus 554, also -10.2%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by the base clock advantage rather than workload-specific architectural factors.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test has the 7502P at 18,225 and the 7452 at 16,377, a -10.1% delta. Single-core R20 shows 2,572 versus 2,312, again -10.1%. The pattern holds exactly.

In Cinebench R23, which is the most recent of the three versions, the multi-core scores are 43,395 for the 7502P and 38,993 for the 7452, with a -10.1% delta. Single-core R23 shows 6,126 versus 5,505, also -10.1%. The margins are nearly identical across all six tests, indicating that the 7502P's advantage is purely frequency-driven.

It is worth remembering the 7452 has fewer recorded benchmarks in the database: it lacks the Geekbench tests that the 7502P has. The 7502P records a Geekbench multi-core score of 7,822 and a single-core score of 963, but no corresponding 7452 data is available for comparison.

The average benchmark score tells an interesting story. The 7452 has an average score of 11,279, while the 7502P has an average of 10,512. This apparent contradiction, where the 7502P wins every head-to-head but has a lower average, is explained by the different benchmark sets each processor was tested with. The 7452's average is computed from six Cinebench tests, while the 7502P's average includes Geekbench tests that drag down its average.

Both processors sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The 7452's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-1145G7 at the same average score, the AMD EPYC 7402 slightly ahead at -0.3% delta, and the AMD EPYC 73F3 at -0.5% delta. The 7502P's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7D12 at -0.3% delta, the Intel Core i7-4790 at -0.4% delta, and the Intel Xeon W-3175X at 1.4% delta.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet for both processors is nearly identical. The only differences are:

• Base clock: 2.20 GHz (7452) versus 2.50 GHz (7502P)
• TDP: 155 (7452) versus 180 (7502P)
• Part number: 100-000000057 (7452) versus 100-000000045 (7502P)

Everything else matches: 32 cores, 64 threads, 3.35 GHz boost clock, AMD Socket SP3, Zen 2 architecture, Rome codename, 7 nm process, TSMC foundry, 3,800 million transistors, 74 mm² die size, 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, 128 MB shared L3, DDR4 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, active production status, and the same release date of 2019-08-06.

Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. Both are locked multipliers, both use the same socket, and both are part of the EPYC 7002 series.

The specification differences are minimal, and the performance data reflects that: the only meaningful hardware distinction is the base clock, which produces the consistent 10% benchmark gap.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the EPYC 7502P wins every single head-to-head benchmark. There are no recorded wins for the EPYC 7452. This makes the use-case split straightforward.

The 7502P is the stronger choice for any workload that appears in the benchmark suite. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all favor the 7502P by approximately 10%. Single-core performance in the same tests also favors the 7502P by the same margin. This consistency means that both heavily threaded workloads and lightly threaded workloads benefit equally from the 7502P's higher base clock.

The 7452's only potential advantage lies in its lower TDP of 155 versus 180. In environments where thermal headroom or power delivery is constrained, the 7452 could be the more practical fit. However, the database contains no power efficiency benchmarks, so this remains an inference from the TDP specification rather than a measured result.

The 7452 also has a higher average benchmark score (11,279 versus 10,512) in the database, but this is due to the different benchmark sets used, not actual performance superiority. When the same tests are compared directly, the 7502P wins all of them.

For workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench suite, the available data does not permit a direct comparison. The Geekbench results for the 7502P (7,822 multi-core, 963 single-core) have no corresponding 7452 scores.

The Verdict

The data points decisively toward the EPYC 7502P. Across six recorded Cinebench tests, the 7502P maintains a consistent lead of approximately 10.1% to 10.2% over the 7452. This advantage holds in both multi-core and single-core workloads, which indicates a frequency-driven performance difference rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The 7502P achieves this with a 2.50 GHz base clock versus the 7452's 2.20 GHz, at the cost of a higher TDP (180 versus 155). The boost clocks are identical at 3.35 GHz, so the performance gap is entirely a sustained-frequency advantage.

The 7452's case rests on its lower TDP. In a server chassis where power delivery or thermal dissipation is limited, the 7452 draws 25 less under load. But for raw performance in any Cinebench workload, the 7502P is the clear winner.

Neither processor carries a launch MSRP in the database, so the cost dimension cannot be assessed. Both sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, both are active production parts, and both share the same architecture, memory support, and PCIe capabilities.

For buyers who prioritize maximum compute throughput in rendering or similar multi-threaded workloads, the 7502P is the correct choice. For buyers who face strict power or thermal budgets, the 7452 offers a measured compromise: slightly lower performance but a meaningfully lower TDP rating. The benchmark record, however, shows no scenario where the 7452 outperforms the 7502P.