AMD EPYC 7502P vs AMD EPYC 7D12 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7502P wins every single benchmark in the comparison suite, with a uniform performance advantage of roughly 16% across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the 7502P scoring 4374 against the 7D12's 3675, a 16% gap. That same 16% delta repeats in Cinebench R15 single-core (617 vs 518), R20 multi-core (18225 vs 15315), R20 single-core (2572 vs 2162), R23 multi-core (43395 vs 36465), and R23 single-core (6126 vs 5148). The only slight deviation is the R20 single-core result, which shows a 15.9% difference—statistically indistinguishable from the others.

What makes this sweep notable is not just the direction but the uniformity of the margin. Across six distinct benchmark runs spanning three different Cinebench versions, the 7502P never falls below a 15.9% lead and never exceeds 16%. This suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent—a consistent clock-speed or architecture-related advantage that scales evenly across core counts and thread counts. The 7D12 trails in absolute terms in every test, yet its average benchmark score of 10547 sits within 0.3% of the 7502P's 10512, meaning the 7D12's benchmark profile elsewhere compensates for its Cinebench deficits.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, both processors occupy the 66th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The 7D12's nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-4790, scores 10556—just 0.1% higher—while the 7502P sits 0.4% below that same i7-4790. The Intel Xeon W-3175X trails both AMD parts by roughly 1.4-1.7%, and the Xeon Gold 6338N is another 0.2-0.3% back. This clustering means the head-to-head Cinebench sweep, while decisive between these two specific SKUs, does not dramatically shift their standing relative to the broader market.

The data raises an interesting question: if the 7502P wins every shared benchmark by 16%, why do their average scores differ by only 0.3%? The answer lies in the 7502P's additional Geekbench results—7822 multi-core and 963 single-core—which are not present in the 7D12's benchmark set. These extra data points pull the 7502P's average upward, while the 7D12's average relies solely on its six Cinebench scores. The implication is that the 7D12's true average, if measured across the same test suite, would likely be lower relative to the 7502P than the raw average suggests.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark evidence, the AMD EPYC 7502P wins every category measured. In multi-threaded workloads—represented by the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests—the 7502P delivers between 3675 and 43395 points depending on the version, consistently outperforming the 7D12's 3675 to 36465 range by that same 16% margin. This makes the 7502P the clear choice for heavily parallelized rendering, simulation, or compilation tasks where every percentage point of throughput translates directly to reduced wall-clock time.

In single-threaded performance, the 7502P again takes the lead, posting 617 in R15, 2572 in R20, and 6126 in R23—each roughly 16% ahead of the 7D12's 518, 2162, and 5148 respectively. This matters for workloads with serial bottlenecks or lightly threaded components, even in server environments where most tasks scale across cores. The 7502P's higher base clock of 2.50 GHz versus the 7D12's 1.10 GHz and its boost of 3.35 GHz versus 3.00 GHz likely drive this advantage, though the fact pack does not provide direct clock-to-performance correlation data.

The 7D12, by contrast, records zero wins across the six head-to-head benchmarks. Its strengths, if any, do not manifest in the Cinebench suite. The data shows no scenario—neither multi-core nor single-core, neither older nor newer benchmark versions—where the 7D12 outperforms the 7502P. Its only potential advantage lies in its lower 85 W TDP compared to the 7502P's 180 W, a factor not reflected in benchmark scores but relevant for dense server deployments where thermal and power constraints dominate.

For use-case planning, the data suggests that any workload benchmarked by Cinebench—which includes common CPU stress tests and rendering tasks—will favor the 7502P. The 7D12 may still be viable for power-sensitive environments, but the benchmark record shows no performance category where it leads. The 7502P's additional Geekbench scores, while not directly comparable to the 7D12, further indicate its broader benchmark presence and consistent performance across multiple testing methodologies.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7502P outperforms the AMD EPYC 7D12 in every measured test. Across six Cinebench runs spanning three versions, the 7502P maintains a 16% lead in both single-core and multi-core scenarios, with the narrowest margin being 15.9% in R20 single-core. For any user whose workload resembles Cinebench—rendering, 3D modeling, or general compute-heavy tasks—the 7502P is the superior choice based on raw performance metrics alone.

However, the verdict is not purely about speed. The 7D12's 85 W TDP versus the 7502P's 180 W represents a significant difference in thermal and power requirements, even though the fact pack does not provide wattage-to-performance efficiency ratios. In a dense server environment where power draw and cooling capacity are constrained, the 7D12's lower TDP could make it the more practical option despite its benchmark deficit. The data shows the 7D12 still delivers respectable absolute performance—36,465 in R23 multi-core is no slouch—while consuming less than half the rated thermal envelope of the 7502P.

The average benchmark scores complicate the picture slightly. The 7D12's average of 10547 edges out the 7502P's 10512 by 0.3%, yet this is driven by the 7D12 lacking Geekbench results that the 7502P includes. When comparing apples to apples across the six shared Cinebench tests, the 7502P wins every time. This suggests that the 7D12's average is buoyed by a narrower test suite, and a fully comparable measurement would likely show the 7502P ahead in aggregate.

For buyers prioritizing maximum performance in benchmark-validated workloads, the 7502P is the data-backed choice. For buyers prioritizing power efficiency and still needing capable multi-core performance, the 7D12's 85 W TDP offers a compelling alternative, though the fact pack provides no power-efficiency benchmarks to quantify that trade-off. The 7502P also holds the advantage of a longer market presence, having released on 2019-08-06 compared to the 7D12's 2020-04-13 launch, though both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests: R15 (4374 vs 3675), R20 (18225 vs 15315), and R23 (43395 vs 36465), each by a 16% margin.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as multi-core?

A: Yes. The 7502P leads by 16% in Cinebench R15 single-core (617 vs 518), 15.9% in R20 single-core (2572 vs 2162), and 16% in R23 single-core (6126 vs 5148).

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The 7D12 has an average benchmark score of 10547, while the 7502P scores 10512. The 7D12 is 0.3% higher, but this includes the 7502P's additional Geekbench results (7822 multi-core, 963 single-core) which the 7D12 lacks.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 32 cores and 64 threads, and both use the same AMD Socket SP3 with Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process node.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The 7D12 has a TDP of 85 W, while the 7502P has a TDP of 180 W—a 95 W difference favoring the 7D12 for power-constrained environments.

Q: How do these chips compare to the Intel Core i7-4790?

A: The i7-4790 has an average score of 10556, which is 0.1% higher than the 7D12 and 0.4% higher than the 7502P. Both AMD chips also sit 1.4-1.7% above the Intel Xeon W-3175X (10369) and 1.6-1.9% above the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N (10347).

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture: Zen 2, codename Rome, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. They use the same AMD Socket SP3 platform and support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with identical 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both are server/workstation parts with ECC memory support and no integrated graphics. The 7D12 reports 15,200 million transistors across a 4x 74 mm² die configuration, while the 7502P lists 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die—a discrepancy that likely reflects different measurement or reporting conventions rather than an actual physical difference, given the identical core counts.

Cache hierarchies differ in notable ways. The 7D12 specifies 64 KB of L1 cache per core, while the 7502P lists 96 KB per core—a 50% larger L1. Both have 512 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is where the configurations diverge more clearly: the 7D12 has 32 MB per die totaling 128 MB, while the 7502P has 128 MB shared. This suggests the 7502P's L3 is a unified pool, whereas the 7D12's is distributed across multiple dies. Both provide the same total L3 capacity, but the access patterns could differ depending on whether workloads favor localized or shared cache access.

The clock speeds present the most significant architectural difference. The 7D12's base clock is 1100.00 MHz—unusually low for a 32-core server part—while the 7502P runs at 2500 MHz base. Boost clocks are 3.00 GHz for the 7D12 and 3.35 GHz for the 7502P. This 1.4 GHz base clock gap explains the consistent 16% benchmark advantage for the 7502P, as higher clocks translate directly to faster instruction execution across all core counts. The 7D12's low base clock likely enables its 85 W TDP, trading performance for power efficiency.

The 7502P belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, while the 7D12 has no series designation in the fact pack. Both share the same generation (EPYC Zen 2 Rome), same process node, and same foundry. PCIe capabilities are listed as Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the 7D12, while the 7502P is simply marked "Gen 4" without a lane count. The 7502P released on 2019-08-06, predating the 7D12's 2020-04-13 launch by roughly eight months. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. Base clock: the 7D12 runs at 1100.00 MHz versus the 7502P's 2500 MHz. Boost clock: 3.00 GHz for the 7D12 versus 3.35 GHz for the 7502P. TDP: 85 W for the 7D12 versus 180 W for the 7502P. L1 cache: 64 KB per core for the 7D12 versus 96 KB per core for the 7502P. L3 cache layout: the 7D12 uses 32 MB per die totaling 128 MB, while the 7502P has 128 MB shared.

Transistor count and die size also differ: the 7D12 reports 15,200 million transistors across 4x 74 mm² dies, while the 7502P reports 3,800 million transistors on a single 74 mm² die. The 7502P is part of the EPYC 7002 series; the 7D12 has no series listed. Release dates differ (2019-08-06 for the 7502P, 2020-04-13 for the 7D12), and part numbers are distinct (100-000000044 for the 7D12, 100-000000045 for the 7502P).

The 7502P includes Geekbench benchmark scores (7822 multi-core, 963 single-core) that the 7D12 lacks, while the 7D12's benchmark set is limited to six Cinebench runs. Both share identical core counts (32), thread counts (64), socket (SP3), architecture (Zen 2), codename (Rome), generation, process node (7 nm), foundry (TSMC), memory support (DDR4), memory bus (eight-channel), memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), ECC support, and market segment. Neither has integrated graphics or an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.