AMD EPYC 7501 vs AMD EPYC 7F32 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7501 scores 21,186 versus 19,718 for the AMD EPYC 7F32, a 7.4% advantage for the 7501.

Q: Is the EPYC 7501 also faster in single-core tests?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7501 wins all three single-core tests, with deltas of 7.5% in R15, R20, and R23.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7501 has an average benchmark score of 6,128, while the EPYC 7F32 averages 5,703. The 7501 sits 7.5% higher overall.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both use AMD Socket SP3, though they are built on different architectures and process nodes.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the release dates?

A: The EPYC 7501 was released on 2017-06-28, and the EPYC 7F32 was released on 2020-04-13.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7501 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The EPYC 7F32 belongs to the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, fabricated on a 7 nm process by TSMC, with 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The EPYC 7501 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7F32 offers only 8 cores and 16 threads. This fourfold core count difference is central to the performance profile of each chip.

Cache layouts also differ. The EPYC 7501 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3 shared across the chip. The EPYC 7F32 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. The EPYC 7F32's total L3 is double that of the EPYC 7501, despite having fewer cores.

Memory support is similar in type: both support DDR4 with eight-channel memory buses. However, the memory bandwidth differs: the EPYC 7501 delivers 170.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 7F32 delivers 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation. The EPYC 7501 uses PCIe Gen 3, while the EPYC 7F32 uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). This is a notable interconnect advancement for the newer chip.

The EPYC 7501 has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 7F32 does not. The EPYC 7501 also has a part number of PS7501BEVIHAF, and the EPYC 7F32 has a part number of 100-000000139.

Clock speeds favor the EPYC 7F32. It has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, versus 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost for the EPYC 7501. TDP values are close: 170 for the EPYC 7501 and 180 for the EPYC 7F32.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7501 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7501 records higher scores, with deltas ranging from 7.4% to 7.5%. This includes both multi-core and single-core workloads.

The EPYC 7F32 does not win any benchmark in the recorded head-to-head data. However, its architectural advantages point to strengths in specific scenarios. The higher base and boost clocks (3.70 GHz and 3.90 GHz versus 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz) suggest responsiveness in latency-sensitive tasks, though the recorded benchmark data does not show a single-core win.

The EPYC 7F32's larger total L3 cache (128 MB versus 64 MB) and higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s) indicate potential advantages in memory-bound workloads. The PCIe Gen 4 support with 128 lanes also positions it for high-throughput I/O environments, such as NVMe storage arrays or GPU clusters.

The EPYC 7501's 32-core configuration makes it the clear choice for heavily threaded workloads like render farms, virtualization hosts, or scientific computing where core count drives throughput. The benchmark data confirms this: the EPYC 7501 leads by 7.4% in multi-core R23 and by 7.5% in multi-core R20.

For users prioritizing raw core count and parallel processing, the EPYC 7501 wins decisively. For users needing newer architecture features, higher clocks, and more cache per die, the EPYC 7F32 offers a different value profile, though its benchmark scores trail in every recorded test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields.

Cores: 32 versus 8. Threads: 64 versus 16. This is the largest specification gap.

Base clock: 2.00 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. The EPYC 7F32 runs significantly faster at both ends.

TDP: 170 versus 180, a moderate difference.

Architecture: Zen versus Zen 2. Codename: Naples versus Rome. Generation: EPYC (Zen (Naples)) versus EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)).

Process node: 14 nm versus 7 nm. Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC.

Transistors: 4,800 million versus 15,200 million. Die size: 213 mm² versus 4x 74 mm².

L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core for both. L3 cache: 64 MB shared versus 32 MB per die with a 128 MB total.

Memory bandwidth: 170.6 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.

PCIe: Gen 3 versus Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only).

Multiplier: unlocked versus locked.

Release date: 2017-06-28 versus 2020-04-13.

Launch MSRP: The EPYC 7F32 has a launch MSRP of $2100. The EPYC 7501 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7501 wins all six recorded benchmarks, with consistent margins between 7.4% and 7.5%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 2,135 against 1,987 for the EPYC 7F32, a 7.4% lead. In R15 single-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 301 against 280, a 7.5% lead.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 8,898 against 8,281, a 7.5% lead. In R20 single-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 1,256 against 1,168, again a 7.5% lead.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 21,186 against 19,718, a 7.4% lead. In R23 single-core, the EPYC 7501 scores 2,991 against 2,783, a 7.5% lead.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across six tests, the delta never drops below 7.4% and never exceeds 7.5%. This suggests a stable performance advantage for the EPYC 7501, regardless of workload type.

The EPYC 7501's average benchmark score of 6,128 places it 7.5% above the EPYC 7F32's 5,703. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-7940X at 6,147 (0.3% above), the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6,186 (0.9% above), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at 6,231 (1.7% above), and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U at 6,247 (1.9% above). The EPYC 7501 sits slightly below these rivals in average score.

The EPYC 7F32's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7351 at 5,710 (0.1% above), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X at 5,730 (0.5% above), the Intel Core i9-7920X at 5,673 (0.5% below), and the Intel Xeon W-2175 at 5,770 (1.2% above). The EPYC 7F32 trails its closest rivals by small margins.

Both processors share the same percentile rank of 61 among all CPUs, indicating they sit at a similar overall performance tier despite the architectural differences.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in raw benchmark performance: the AMD EPYC 7501. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins between 7.4% and 7.5% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide a substantial throughput advantage over the EPYC 7F32's 8 cores and 16 threads.

For users running heavily threaded workloads, such as large-scale virtualization, scientific simulation, or content rendering, the EPYC 7501 is the stronger choice. The benchmark results confirm that core count translates directly into higher scores in every recorded test.

The EPYC 7F32 offers a different set of trade-offs. It has higher clock speeds (3.70 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost versus 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz), a newer Zen 2 architecture, a 7 nm process node, double the total L3 cache (128 MB versus 64 MB), higher memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s versus 170.6 GB/s), and PCIe Gen 4 support. These features may benefit specific workloads, particularly those that are latency-sensitive or memory-bandwidth-bound. However, the recorded benchmark data does not show a single win for the EPYC 7F32.

The EPYC 7501 also carries a lower TDP of 170 versus 180 for the EPYC 7F32, despite having four times the core count. This efficiency profile strengthens its case for dense server deployments.

Both processors share the same socket, memory type, and ECC support. The EPYC 7501 has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 7F32 does not. The EPYC 7F32 has a launch MSRP of $2100, while the EPYC 7501 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Given the benchmark data, the verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 7501 is the better performer in every recorded test. Users who prioritize measured benchmark scores should choose the EPYC 7501. Users who need the newer PCIe Gen 4 interconnect, higher clocks, or larger total L3 cache may prefer the EPYC 7F32, but they must accept a 7.4% to 7.5% benchmark deficit in all Cinebench tests. The recorded data favors the EPYC 7501 without exception.