AMD EPYC 74F3 vs AMD EPYC 7702P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture across all six Cinebench tests: the AMD EPYC 7702P wins every single comparison, though by narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7702P scores 5272 against the EPYC 74F3's 5197, a 1.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with 744 versus 733 — a 1.5% edge for the 7702P. These are close enough that a single run could flip the result, yet the consistency across every workload category suggests a genuine, if small, performance lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result repeats the 1.4% delta: 21969 for the 7702P versus 21657 for the 74F3. The single-core R20 test likewise lands at 1.4%, with scores of 3101 and 3057 respectively. The R23 suite confirms the trend — multicore at 52308 against 51566 (1.4% difference) and single-core at 7384 against 7279 (1.4% difference). Across all six benchmarks, the largest gap is the 1.5% seen in R15 single-core; the smallest is the 1.4% that repeats in five of six tests. No test shows the EPYC 74F3 ahead, giving the 7702P a clean 6–0 sweep in the head-to-head results.

What makes this interesting is the underlying hardware contrast. The EPYC 7702P is a 64-core, 128-thread processor based on Zen 2 architecture, while the EPYC 74F3 is a 24-core, 48-thread part built on Zen 3. The newer Zen 3 core in the 74F3 delivers higher clock speeds — a base of 2.80 GHz versus 2.00 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz versus 3.35 GHz — yet the sheer core-count advantage of the 7702P appears to offset the architectural and frequency gains. The data shows that in these Cinebench workloads, raw core count wins over per-core efficiency, at least at these margins.

The average benchmark scores place the two nearly level: the 7702P averages 15130 across all benchmarks, while the 74F3 averages 14915, a 1.4% difference that mirrors the head-to-head deltas. Both processors sit at the 69th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy a similar tier in overall performance distribution. The nearestRivals data reinforces this: each lists the other as a near rival, with the 7702P showing the 74F3 at 1.4% below its average, and the 74F3 showing the 7702P at 1.4% above. The other rivals — Intel Core i3-1315U, Intel Core 5 211TE, and Intel Core i7-9750H — all cluster within a 1.6% band, demonstrating that these two EPYC parts are part of a tightly grouped performance class rather than outliers at either extreme.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins all the Cinebench head-to-head comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, taking Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests. The deltas range from 1.4% to 1.5% in favor of the 7702P, with the EPYC 74F3 recording zero wins.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7702P in multicore workloads?

A: In multicore tests, the EPYC 7702P leads by 1.4% consistently. The R15 multicore score is 5272 versus 5197, the R20 multicore score is 21969 versus 21657, and the R23 multicore score is 52308 versus 51566.

Q: Does the EPYC 74F3 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The EPYC 7702P also wins all three single-core tests, with scores of 744 versus 733 in R15, 3101 versus 3057 in R20, and 7384 versus 7279 in R23. The single-core advantage ranges from 1.4% to 1.5%.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 74F3 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The 7702P's 40-core advantage is the most dramatic specification difference between the two.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The EPYC 74F3 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7702P's base of 2.00 GHz and boost of 3.35 GHz. The 74F3 runs at higher frequencies on both metrics.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7702P was released on August 6, 2019, while the EPYC 74F3 was released on March 14, 2021. The 74F3 is the newer design by about 19 months, yet it does not outperform the older part in these benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the AMD EPYC 7702P. It wins every benchmark in the comparison suite, and its average benchmark score of 15130 exceeds the EPYC 74F3's 14915 by 1.4%. The 7702P's 64 cores and 128 threads provide a substantial parallel-processing advantage that more than compensates for the 74F3's higher clock speeds and newer Zen 3 architecture. For workloads that scale with core count — which Cinebench multicore tests represent — the 7702P is the stronger choice based strictly on these results.

However, the margins are thin enough that the decision should not be made on benchmark scores alone. A 1.4% performance difference in this test suite is within the range of run-to-run variation for some systems, and the 74F3's higher base and boost clocks could translate to better performance in latency-sensitive or lightly threaded applications not captured by these Cinebench results. The 74F3 also has a lower core count, which means lower thread contention in certain virtualized or containerized environments where per-core licensing costs matter — though such economic considerations fall outside the benchmark data.

The 7702P is the safer pick for heavily parallel workloads, dense virtualization, or multi-tenant server scenarios where 128 threads provide headroom. The 74F3, with its 24 cores and 48 threads, offers a more modest thread count but faster individual cores. For single-threaded performance, the benchmark data still favors the 7702P, but the 74F3's 4.00 GHz boost clock suggests it could close or reverse that gap in workloads that are not well-represented by Cinebench's rendering-oriented test pattern. Notably, the 74F3 has a launch MSRP of $2900, while the 7702P has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core configuration. The EPYC 7702P offers 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 74F3 provides 24 cores and 48 threads — a 40-core and 80-thread difference. Clock speeds also favor the 74F3: its base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost of 4.00 GHz exceed the 7702P's 2.00 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. Thermal design power moves in the opposite direction, with the 7702P rated at 200 watts and the 74F3 at 240 watts, a 40-watt gap.

Cache hierarchies differ in L1 size. The 7702P has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 74F3 has 64 KB per core; both share 512 KB of L2 per core and 256 MB of L3. Transistor counts and die layouts are markedly different: the 7702P packs 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die, whereas the 74F3 uses 33,200 million transistors spread across four 81 mm² dies. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and both have ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 4 — though the 74F3 specifies 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7702P lists simply "Gen 4."

Release timing separates the pair by nearly two years: the 7702P launched on August 6, 2019, and the 74F3 on March 14, 2021. The 7702P carries part number 100-000000047, while the 74F3 uses 100-000000317100-100000317WOF. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the server/workstation market segment on AMD Socket SP3.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7702P is built on Zen 2 architecture under the codename Rome, belonging to the EPYC 7002 series. The EPYC 74F3 uses Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan, with no series designation listed. Both are manufactured on a 7 nm process by TSMC, but the die configuration differs fundamentally: the 7702P uses a single 74 mm² die, while the 74F3 uses four 81 mm² dies. The transistor counts reflect this — 3,800 million for the 7702P versus 33,200 million for the 74F3 — a difference of roughly 8.7 times more transistors in the newer part despite the smaller core count.

L1 cache per core is larger in the 7702P at 96 KB versus 64 KB, but both share the same 512 KB L2 per core and 256 MB L3. The architectural generation gap means the 74F3's Zen 3 cores benefit from architectural improvements that typically yield better instructions per clock, but the benchmark data does not show this translating into a win. The 74F3's higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz and base clock of 2.80 GHz are the most tangible signs of the newer design's frequency headroom, yet the 7702P's 64-core count provides a parallel throughput advantage that dominates in the Cinebench suite.

Memory and I/O features are largely identical, with both supporting eight-channel DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 4. The 74F3's PCIe specification includes 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7702P's listing is less specific. Both use AMD Socket SP3, and neither has integrated graphics. The 74F3's higher TDP of 240 watts versus 200 watts for the 7702P is notable given the 74F3 has fewer cores — the extra power budget supports its higher clock speeds.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7702P wins in every benchmark category measured, so its strengths are unambiguous: multicore rendering, single-core rendering, and overall average benchmark performance. With 64 cores and 128 threads versus 24 and 48, the 7702P is positioned for workloads where thread count drives throughput — Cinebench multicore tests, high-density virtualization, database workloads that scale across many vCPUs, and batch processing jobs that can saturate 128 threads. The 1.4% multicore advantage in R15, R20, and R23 shows that even a 40-core deficit in the 74F3 cannot be fully compensated by higher clocks and newer architecture.

The EPYC 74F3's case rests on its specification sheet rather than its benchmark wins, since it records zero victories in the head-to-head data. Its 4.00 GHz boost clock and 2.80 GHz base clock are 19.4% and 40% higher than the 7702P's respective figures, which could translate to better performance in workloads that are latency-bound, single-threaded, or poorly parallelized — areas where Cinebench's rendering-centric tests may not fully capture the 74F3's potential. The 74F3's 240 watt TDP, while higher, accompanies a lower core count, which could reduce contention in NUMA-sensitive applications. Its Zen 3 architecture and four-die layout (33,200 million transistors across 4x 81 mm²) also make it the more advanced design on paper.

For a use-case split: choose the 7702P for dense multithreaded server workloads, large-scale parallel compilation, or any environment where 128 threads can be kept busy. Choose the 74F3 for scenarios where clock speed matters more than core count — for instance, high-frequency trading, real-time analytics, or front-end web serving where per-request latency is critical — though the benchmark data does not directly confirm an advantage in such cases. The 74F3's launch MSRP of $2900 provides a reference point, but the 7702P's lack of a listed MSRP prevents a direct cost comparison. Ultimately, the data says the 7702P wins the benchmark battle; the 74F3 wins the architecture race on paper but fails to convert that into a single benchmark victory.