AMD EPYC 7502P vs AMD EPYC 7542 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7502P wins every single head-to-head comparison against the AMD EPYC 7542 across all six Cinebench tests. The margin is remarkably consistent, with the 7502P leading by roughly 11 percent in every workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7502P scores 4374 against the 7542’s 3886, a delta of -11.2 percent from the 7542’s perspective. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 617 for the 7502P versus 548 for the 7542, again an 11.2 percent gap.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the 7502P posts 18225 in multi-core, while the 7542 manages 16193, a difference of -11.1 percent. Single-core R20 sees the 7502P at 2572 compared to 2286 for the 7542, also -11.1 percent. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the 7502P reaches 43395 multi-core against the 7542’s 38555, and 6126 single-core versus 5443. Both deltas register at -11.2 percent and -11.1 percent, respectively. Such uniformity across different Cinebench versions suggests a fixed performance advantage that scales proportionally with clock speed, not a workload-specific quirk.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this picture. The 7542 holds an average score of 11152, while the 7502P sits at 10512. Interestingly, the 7542’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U at 11176 (-0.2 percent), the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y at 11191 (-0.3 percent), and the Intel Core i3-1305U at 11200 (-0.4 percent). The 7502P’s nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7D12 at 10547 (-0.3 percent), the Intel Core i7-4790 at 10556 (-0.4 percent), and the Intel Xeon W-3175X at 10369 (1.4 percent). Both CPUs sit in the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the 7502P’s consistent head-to-head wins.

The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the 7542 and six wins for the 7502P. This is not a close contest. The 7502P’s advantage is real, repeatable, and roughly 11 percent in every measured scenario. For buyers choosing between these two, the benchmark evidence points decisively to the 7502P as the faster chip in Cinebench workloads, both single-threaded and multi-threaded.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins more benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P wins all six head-to-head comparisons against the AMD EPYC 7542. The 7542 records zero wins, while the 7502P takes every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both multi-core and single-core.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core tests?

A: The 7502P leads by approximately 11 percent in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 7502P scores 43395 versus 38555 for the 7542, a delta of -11.2 percent. The R20 multi-core result shows 18225 against 16193, and R15 multi-core shows 4374 against 3886.

Q: Does the single-core performance gap match the multi-core gap?

A: Yes, the single-core deltas are nearly identical to the multi-core deltas. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 7502P scores 6126 versus 5443 for the 7542, a -11.1 percent difference. R20 single-core shows 2572 against 2286, and R15 single-core shows 617 against 548, both also around -11 percent.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile overall?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7542 and the AMD EPYC 7502P are in the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores differ, 11152 for the 7542 and 10512 for the 7502P, but they occupy the same overall tier.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each CPU in the database?

A: The 7542’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U with an average score of 11176, just 0.2 percent higher. The 7502P’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7D12 at 10547, 0.3 percent higher. The 7502P also sits 1.4 percent above the Intel Xeon W-3175X and 1.6 percent above the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N.

Q: Does the 7502P have any benchmark data beyond Cinebench?

A: Yes, the database records Geekbench results for the 7502P only. It scores 7822 in multi-core and 963 in single-core. The 7542 has no Geekbench entries in the available data, so no comparison can be made on that test.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture: Zen 2, codename Rome, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. Both use 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The cache hierarchy is identical, with 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 128 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, both support ECC memory, and both provide PCIe Gen 4 connectivity. Both use AMD Socket SP3.

The architectural core is therefore the same. The differences are entirely in operating parameters, not in design. The 7542 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The 7502P has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The 7502P runs at a lower base clock by 0.40 GHz and a slightly lower boost clock by 0.05 GHz, yet it outperforms the 7542 in every recorded benchmark. This is counterintuitive at first glance, but the data supports it consistently.

The thermal design power differs as well. The 7542 has a TDP of 225 watts, while the 7502P has a TDP of 180 watts. The 7502P delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing less thermal headroom. This suggests that the 7502P’s silicon is binned more favorably, or that the 7542’s higher base clock does not translate into sustained performance gains in the measured workloads. In the database, the 7502P’s lower clocks and lower TDP produce superior results, which is unusual for same-generation parts.

The part numbers differ: the 7542 is 100-000000075 and the 7502P is 100-000000045. Both are marked as active production status, both were released on the same date, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both target the server/workstation market segment. The architecture analysis thus reduces to clock speed and power envelope, with the 7502P emerging as the better performer despite the 7542’s nominal clock advantage.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in four recorded specification fields. Base clock: the 7542 runs at 2.90 GHz, the 7502P at 2.50 GHz. Boost clock: the 7542 reaches 3.40 GHz, the 7502P reaches 3.35 GHz. TDP: the 7542 is rated at 225 watts, the 7502P at 180 watts. Part number: the 7542 is 100-000000075, the 7502P is 100-000000045.

All other specifications are identical. Both have 32 cores and 64 threads. Both use the same L1, L2, and L3 cache sizes. Both support DDR4 with eight-channel memory and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both have ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 4, no integrated graphics, and the same socket. Both are Zen 2 Rome parts on 7 nm with 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die. Both were released on the same date and are active in production.

The specification sheet presents a paradox: the 7542 has higher clocks but lower benchmark scores. The 7502P has lower clocks, lower TDP, and higher scores. The database does not explain the mechanism, but the recorded numbers are consistent across all six Cinebench tests. The 7502P’s advantage is not marginal; it is a uniform 11 percent. This makes the 7502P the stronger choice on paper for performance, despite the 7542’s apparent clock speed superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins in every benchmark category recorded. It takes all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, across R15, R20, and R23. It also holds the only Geekbench entries in the data, scoring 7822 multi-core and 963 single-core. If the use case is any Cinebench-style rendering workload, single-threaded or multi-threaded, the 7502P is the clear winner.

The AMD EPYC 7542 has no recorded benchmark wins. Its average score of 11152 is higher than the 7502P’s 10512, but that average includes different benchmark sets. The 7542’s average is drawn from six Cinebench scores, while the 7502P’s average includes those six plus two Geekbench scores. The head-to-head comparisons, which use identical tests for both, show the 7502P ahead every time.

For workloads that resemble Cinebench, the 7502P is the better processor. For workloads that rely on the 7542’s higher base clock (2.90 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) or higher boost clock (3.40 GHz versus 3.35 GHz), the specification sheet might suggest an advantage, but the benchmark data does not support it. The 7502P also runs at a lower TDP of 180 watts versus 225 watts, which could be advantageous in power-constrained environments, though the database does not record power efficiency metrics.

In practical terms, the 7502P wins for multi-threaded server workloads, single-threaded responsiveness, and any application where Cinebench scores correlate with real-world performance. The 7542 offers no measured advantage in the recorded data. The choice is straightforward: the EPYC 7502P is the faster chip in every test, and the EPYC 7542 is the slower chip in every test, despite its higher clock specifications. For a buyer optimizing purely for benchmark performance, the 7502P is the recommended pick. For a buyer who values the higher base clock, the 7542 remains an option, but the data shows no performance benefit from that clock speed.