AMD EPYC 7502 vs AMD EPYC 9174F Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7502 and AMD EPYC 9174F represent two distinct generations of AMD’s server platform, and the benchmark data shows a clear, consistent winner. The 9174F, a Zen 4 part, outperforms the older Zen 2 7502 across every single Cinebench benchmark recorded. However, the 7502 offers double the core count of the 9174F, making this a contest between raw frequency and core throughput. The data indicates that the newer architecture's efficiency and higher clocks are decisive in the tested workloads, but the choice between these two depends heavily on whether your application scales with cores or relies on single-threaded speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably uniform: the AMD EPYC 9174F wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with a consistent performance margin. In the multi-threaded tests, the 9174F's advantage is substantial. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 9174F scores 4686 against the 7502's 4428, a delta of -5.5% (meaning the 7502 trails by 5.5%). This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the 9174F scores 19525 versus 18454 for the 7502, again a -5.5% delta. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the 9174F reaches 46489 points, while the 7502 manages 43940, maintaining that same 5.5% deficit.

The single-core results tell a very similar story, highlighting the architectural leap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 9174F scores 661, compared to 625 for the 7502. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows the 9174F at 2756, against the 7502's 2605. Finally, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9174F scores 6563, beating the 7502's 6203. In every single-core test, the delta is again a consistent -5.5% for the 7502. This uniformity suggests a fundamental clock-for-clock advantage for the 9174F's Zen 4 architecture, rather than a workload-specific quirk. It is a clean sweep; the data records zero wins for the 7502 and six for the 9174F.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9174F is faster. It wins all three multi-core Cinebench benchmarks (R15, R20, and R23), with the 7502 trailing by exactly 5.5% in each test.

Q: How significant is the single-core performance difference?

A: It is consistently in favor of the 9174F. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests, the 7502 trails by a uniform 5.5%. The 9174F's boost clock of 4.40 GHz, compared to the 7502's 3.35 GHz, appears to be a decisive factor.

Q: Does the 7502 have any performance advantage at all?

A: Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, no. The 9174F wins every recorded test. However, the 7502 does have double the cores (32 vs 16), which might benefit unbenchmarked workloads that scale perfectly with core count, but the data provided shows no such advantage.

Q: What is the performance delta between the two in the tests?

A: The delta is consistently -5.5% in favor of the 9174F across all six Cinebench benchmarks. This means the 7502 scores 5.5% lower than the 9174F in every single test.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The 7502 has an average benchmark score of 12709, placing it near the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 (12746, a -0.3% delta) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X (12786, a -0.6% delta). The 9174F, with an average score of 12536, sits close to the Intel Core i5-1230U (12559, a -0.2% delta) and the Intel Atom x7809C (12607, a -0.6% delta). Both processors share a 67th percentile ranking among all CPUs.

Q: Are there any Geekbench scores for the 7502?

A: No. The data includes Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores only for the 9174F (17363 and 2244, respectively). The 7502’s benchmark data is limited to the six Cinebench tests.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two CPUs is vast, representing two major generational leaps for AMD. The EPYC 7502 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC. In contrast, the EPYC 9174F is a Zen 4 part, codenamed Genoa, fabricated on a more advanced 5 nm node. This node shrink contributes to the 9174F's higher efficiency and clock speeds.

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The 7502 packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the 9174F has half that, with 16 cores and 32 threads. The cache hierarchy also differs significantly. Each core of the 7502 has 96 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache, with a massive 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The 9174F uses 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, but doubles the shared L3 cache to 256 MB. This larger L3 cache is a key feature for the 9174F, likely aiding in data-heavy server workloads.

Memory and I/O subsystems mark another major divergence. The 7502 supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The 9174F moves to DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus, yielding a much higher 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe support is also updated: the 7502 uses Gen 4, while the 9174F provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). These changes require different sockets—the 7502 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 9174F uses the newer Socket SP5. The transistor count is dramatically different, with the 9174F listing 52,560 million transistors across 8x 72 mm² dies, compared to the 7502's 3,800 million on a single 74 mm² die.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for performance: the AMD EPYC 9174F. It wins every benchmark recorded, with a consistent 5.5% lead in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. If your primary concern is raw benchmark performance, the 9174F is the superior part. Its higher base and boost clocks (4.10 GHz and 4.40 GHz versus 2.50 GHz and 3.35 GHz) and newer Zen 4 architecture give it an edge that the 7502's double core count cannot overcome in these specific tests.

However, the choice is not purely about benchmark scores. The 7502 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, which is double the 9174F's 16 cores and 32 threads. For workloads that are heavily parallelized and can utilize every available thread, the 7502’s architecture may still be relevant, even if the provided Cinebench data does not reflect it. The 9174F is the right pick for applications that are latency-sensitive and benefit from high clock speeds and the massive 256 MB L3 cache. The 7502 remains a viable option for high-core-count throughput tasks, but based strictly on the measured benchmarks, the 9174F is the faster processor. The 7502 is an older, more power-efficient part on paper (180W TDP vs 320W), but the 9174F delivers superior performance in every measured category.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 32 (7502) vs 16 (9174F)
• Threads: 64 (7502) vs 32 (9174F)
• Base Clock: 2.50 GHz (7502) vs 4.10 GHz (9174F)
• Boost Clock: 3.35 GHz (7502) vs 4.40 GHz (9174F)
• TDP: 180 W (7502) vs 320 W (9174F)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 (7502) vs AMD Socket SP5 (9174F)
• Architecture: Zen 2 (7502) vs Zen 4 (9174F)
• Process Node: 7 nm (7502) vs 5 nm (9174F)
• L1 Cache: 96 KB per core (7502) vs 64 KB per core (9174F)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (7502) vs 1 MB per core (9174F)
• L3 Cache: 128 MB shared (7502) vs 256 MB shared (9174F)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (7502) vs DDR5 (9174F)
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel (7502) vs Twelve-channel (9174F)
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s (7502) vs 460.8 GB/s (9174F)
• PCIe: Gen 4 (7502) vs Gen 5, 128 Lanes (9174F)

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 9174F: This processor wins in every single benchmark category recorded. It is the superior choice for single-threaded performance, as evidenced by its consistent 5.5% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. Its higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz makes it the obvious pick for workloads that rely on per-core speed, such as database transactions or lightly-threaded applications. It also wins in multi-threaded performance in these tests, meaning that even in parallel workloads, the 9174F's efficiency and clock advantage beat the 7502's core surplus in a head-to-head comparison. Its support for DDR5 memory and twelve-channel bandwidth further cements its position for memory-intensive tasks.

AMD EPYC 7502: The data shows no benchmark wins for the 7502. Its strengths are purely theoretical, based on its specifications. With 32 cores and 64 threads, it provides double the parallel processing capacity of the 9174F. This could be a deciding factor in highly parallel, specialized enterprise workloads that are not represented by the Cinebench suite, such as certain virtualization or scientific computing tasks. However, the benchmark results indicate that the 9174F's superior architecture is more than enough to compensate for the core deficit in the tested applications. The 7502's lower TDP of 180W also suggests a potential power efficiency advantage in dense server deployments, but this is not a benchmark metric.