AMD EPYC 7502P vs AMD EPYC 7F52 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous picture: the AMD EPYC 7502P wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, taking all six tests with a consistent delta of approximately 23.5–23.6% over the AMD EPYC 7F52. The 7502P leads by 834 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core (4374 vs 3540), by 3474 points in R20 multi-core (18225 vs 14751), and by 8272 points in R23 multi-core (43395 vs 35123). Single-core results follow the same pattern, with the 7502P ahead by 118 points in R15 (617 vs 499), 490 points in R20 (2572 vs 2082), and 1168 points in R23 (6126 vs 4958).

For workloads that scale with core count and sustained multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 7502P is the clear choice based strictly on these benchmark results. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide a 2x thread advantage over the 7F52's 16 cores and 32 threads, which translates directly into the measured performance gap. The 7502P also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score: 10512 versus 10159 for the 7F52, a difference of roughly 3.5% across all recorded tests.

However, the 7F52 is not without merit in specific scenarios. It operates at a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz vs 3.35 GHz), which suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks even though the single-core benchmarks in this data set do not reflect that advantage. The 7F52 also doubles the L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the 7502P. For workloads with large working sets that fit in cache, the 7F52 could theoretically reduce memory stalls, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect. Both processors share the same Zen 2 architecture, 7 nm process node, eight-channel DDR4 memory support, 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

The verdict for a benchmark-conscious buyer: the EPYC 7502P is the performance leader across every measured metric in this comparison. The EPYC 7F52 is the alternative when higher clock speeds and double the L3 cache matter more than raw multi-core scores—but the data shows no benchmark where that trade-off yields a win.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process with 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size. They share the same AMD Socket SP3 platform, support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel memory bus, and offer 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, and both feature PCIe Gen 4 connectivity. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment.

The core and thread counts differ substantially. The EPYC 7502P features 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7F52 features 16 cores and 32 threads. This 2x core advantage for the 7502P is the primary architectural differentiator driving the multi-core benchmark results. Clock speeds favor the 7F52: its base clock of 3.50 GHz is 1.0 GHz higher than the 7502P's 2.50 GHz, and its boost clock of 3.90 GHz is 0.55 GHz higher than the 7502P's 3.35 GHz.

Cache configurations also diverge. Both processors have 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is doubled on the 7F52: 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the 7502P. This larger L3 could benefit workloads with large, frequently accessed data sets, though the benchmark suite in this comparison does not isolate that variable.

Thermal design power differs as well: the 7502P has a TDP of 180 watts, while the 7F52 has a TDP of 240 watts. This means the 7F52 draws more power despite having half the cores, reflecting its higher clock speeds. The release dates also differ: the 7502P launched on 2019-08-06, while the 7F52 launched later on 2020-04-13. Both processors are currently marked as Active in production status and target the Server/Workstation market segment. The 7502P's part number is 100-000000045, and the 7F52's is 100-000000140100-000000140WOF.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. Across all six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23, each in multi-core and single-core variants—the EPYC 7502P wins with a delta of 23.5% or 23.6% over the EPYC 7F52. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by the core count differential rather than workload-specific optimizations.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7502P scores 4374 versus 3540 for the 7F52, a 23.6% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same 23.6% delta: 617 versus 499. Moving to R20, the multi-core gap is 23.6% (18225 vs 14751), and the single-core gap is 23.5% (2572 vs 2082). In R23, the multi-core delta is again 23.6% (43395 vs 35123), and the single-core delta is 23.6% (6126 vs 4958).

The largest absolute difference is in R23 multi-core, where the 7502P leads by 8272 points. The smallest absolute difference is in R15 single-core, where the lead is 118 points. In percentage terms, the gap is nearly identical across all tests, indicating that the 7502P's advantage scales evenly with thread count and does not diminish or expand at higher core counts. This uniformity also suggests that the 7F52's higher clock speeds do not provide a compensating advantage in single-threaded workloads—at least not within the Cinebench suite.

Geekbench results are available only for the 7502P, which scores 7822 in multi-core and 963 in single-core. No Geekbench data is listed for the 7F52, so a direct comparison in that benchmark is not possible from the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. The AMD EPYC 7F52 wins zero. The 7502P's wins span Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, each in both multi-core and single-core variants.

Q: What is the performance gap between the two processors?

A: The EPYC 7502P leads by 23.6% in five of the six tests and by 23.5% in the remaining test (Cinebench R20 single-core). The average benchmark score difference is smaller: 10512 for the 7502P versus 10159 for the 7F52, a gap of approximately 3.5%.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the 16 cores and 32 threads of the EPYC 7F52. This 2x thread advantage is the most plausible explanation for the consistent 23.6% performance lead in multi-threaded benchmarks.

Q: Does the EPYC 7F52 have any architectural advantages?

A: Yes. The 7F52 has a higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.90 GHz vs 3.35 GHz). It also has double the L3 cache: 256 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the 7502P. However, these advantages do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmarks.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The EPYC 7502P has a TDP of 180 watts, while the EPYC 7F52 has a TDP of 240 watts. Despite having half the cores, the 7F52 draws more power, consistent with its higher clock speeds.

Q: Are these processors similar in other respects?

A: Both use the Zen 2 architecture (Rome codename) on a 7 nm TSMC process with 3,800 million transistors and a 74 mm² die size. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus, 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, ECC memory, and PCIe Gen 4. Both are on AMD Socket SP3 and target the Server/Workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins in every benchmark category recorded in this comparison. Its six wins span multi-core and single-core tests across three Cinebench versions. The data shows a uniform 23.6% advantage, which makes the 7502P the superior choice for any workload that is well-represented by Cinebench—rendering, CPU-bound compute, and multi-threaded compilation or simulation tasks. The 7502P's 32 cores and 64 threads provide the raw parallelism needed for heavily threaded server workloads, and its 180-watt TDP is lower than the 7F52's 240-watt TDP, meaning it achieves higher performance with lower thermal design power.

The AMD EPYC 7F52 has no benchmark wins in this data set, but it is not without a defined role. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.50/3.90 GHz vs 2.50/3.35 GHz) could offer lower latency in lightly threaded operations, even though the single-core Cinebench scores do not reflect an advantage. Its 256 MB L3 cache—double the 7502P's 128 MB—could benefit workloads with very large working sets that exceed the smaller cache, such as certain database or in-memory analytics scenarios. The 7F52 also launched later (2020-04-13 vs 2019-08-06), so it may include any incremental firmware or platform refinements that came with a later release, though the benchmark data does not capture such differences.

In practical terms, the 7502P is the pick for multi-threaded throughput and overall benchmark dominance. The 7F52 is the pick when higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache are the primary considerations, and when the workload is not dominated by core-count scaling. The data, however, provides no measured scenario where the 7F52 comes out ahead. The 7502P's average benchmark score of 10512 places it in the 66th percentile of all CPUs, matching the 7F52's identical 66th percentile ranking, so both are similarly positioned relative to the broader CPU landscape. The nearest rival to the 7502P is the AMD EPYC 7D12 (average score 10547, delta -0.3%), while the 7F52's closest rival is the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 (average score 10230, delta -0.7%). These external comparisons further contextualize the two AMD parts as closely matched in overall standing, but the head-to-head data leaves no doubt about which one wins this specific matchup.