AMD EPYC 7502P vs AMD EPYC 9224 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a complete sweep for the AMD EPYC 7502P across every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison. The EPYC 9224 does not win a single benchmark in this matchup, with the 7502P taking all six tests. This is a striking result given that the two processors occupy the same 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning their overall standing is identical despite the per-test differences.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7502P scores 4374 against the 9224's 3874, a delta of -11.4% from the 9224's perspective. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern: 617 for the 7502P versus 546 for the 9224, again an -11.5% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result shows 18225 for the 7502P and 16144 for the 9224, while single-core lands at 2572 versus 2278. The newest Cinebench R23 test repeats the theme: 43395 for the 7502P against 38439 for the 9224 in multi-core, and 6126 versus 5426 in single-core.

Every delta sits at roughly -11.4%, which suggests the performance gap is consistent and not workload-specific within the Cinebench suite. The 7502P leads by virtually the same margin whether the test stresses all cores or just one. That consistency points to a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a quirk of a particular rendering workload.

Looking at the broader database averages, the 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11118, while the 7502P sits at 10512. This is an interesting inversion: the 7502P wins every head-to-head Cinebench test, yet its average across all recorded benchmarks is lower. The 9224's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7542 at 11152 (-0.3%), the Intel Core i7-6700 at 11074 (+0.4%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U at 11176 (-0.5%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y at 11191 (-0.6%). The 7502P's nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7D12 at 10547 (-0.3%), the Intel Core i7-4790 at 10556 (-0.4%), the Intel Xeon W-3175X at 10369 (+1.4%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N at 10347 (+1.6%). So the 9224 sits in a slightly higher performance neighborhood overall, even though it loses this specific matchup.

The practical takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the 7502P is the stronger Cinebench performer by a meaningful margin. The 11.4% deficit for the 9224 is not trivial; it represents a real difference in rendering and compute throughput for applications that scale like Cinebench. However, the average benchmark score tells a different story about overall versatility, so the choice depends on which workloads matter most.

The Verdict

For buyers focused purely on Cinebench-class rendering workloads, the AMD EPYC 7502P is the clear choice. It wins every single head-to-head test by roughly 11.4%, and that margin is consistent across both single-core and multi-core variants of R15, R20, and R23. The 7502P also brings 32 cores and 64 threads compared to the 9224's 24 cores and 48 threads, which aligns with its multi-core advantage.

The 9224 is the better pick for environments where the broader benchmark average matters. Its average score of 11118 exceeds the 7502P's 10512, and its nearest rivals cluster in a higher performance tier. The 9224 also offers newer platform features that the head-to-head numbers do not capture directly, which we will cover in the specification and architecture sections. If the workload mix includes memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks or PCIe Gen 5 devices, the 9224's platform advantages could outweigh its Cinebench deficit.

The data does not support choosing the 9224 for raw Cinebench throughput. It loses every recorded test. But the data also does not support declaring the 7502P universally superior, because its average benchmark score is lower and its nearest competitors are generally weaker performers. The verdict depends on whether the target workload resembles Cinebench or resembles the broader benchmark distribution.

Server buyers should note that both chips are actively produced and target the server/workstation segment. The 7502P uses the older SP3 socket platform, while the 9224 uses SP5. That socket difference affects upgrade paths and system-level choices, which we will detail later.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7502P wins with a score of 43395, while the AMD EPYC 9224 scores 38439. The 9224 trails by -11.4%.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The 7502P leads in all three single-core tests. In R15 it scores 617 versus 546 (-11.5%), in R20 it scores 2572 versus 2278 (-11.4%), and in R23 it scores 6126 versus 5426 (-11.4%).

Q: Does the EPYC 9224 win any head-to-head benchmark against the 7502P?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 0 wins for the 9224 and 6 wins for the 7502P across all six Cinebench tests.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11118, while the AMD EPYC 7502P averages 10512. This means the 9224 performs better across the broader benchmark database despite losing the Cinebench head-to-head.

Q: How do the two chips compare in terms of core count?

A: The EPYC 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The 7502P has 8 more cores and 16 more threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The EPYC 9224 boosts to 3.70 GHz, while the EPYC 7502P boosts to 3.35 GHz. Both have a base clock of 2.50 GHz.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications. The EPYC 9224 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the EPYC 7502P uses AMD Socket SP3. These sockets are not interchangeable, so platform choice is dictated by the processor.

Core and thread counts differ significantly: the 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the 7502P has 32 cores and 64 threads. The 7502P offers 33% more cores and threads, which explains its multi-core benchmark advantage.

Clock speeds are close at the base level, with both running at 2.50 GHz. The boost clocks differ: the 9224 reaches 3.70 GHz, while the 7502P tops out at 3.35 GHz. The 9224 has a 0.35 GHz higher boost clock, yet it still loses single-core benchmarks, which is notable.

Thermal design power differs as well. The 9224 has a TDP of 200, while the 7502P has a TDP of 180. The newer chip draws more power despite having fewer cores.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The 9224 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The 7502P supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The 9224 offers more than double the memory bandwidth, which matters for memory-intensive server workloads.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The 9224 supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 7502P supports PCIe Gen 4 without a lane count specified in the database. The 9224's PCIe Gen 5 support enables faster peripheral and storage connectivity.

Release dates place the 9224 in November 2022 and the 7502P in August 2019. The 9224 has a launch MSRP of $1825, while the 7502P has no recorded launch MSRP. Both processors are actively in production.

The 9224's part number is 100-100000939, and the 7502P's is 100-000000045. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The EPYC 9224 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa, part of the EPYC 9004 series. The EPYC 7502P uses Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, part of the EPYC 7002 series. This represents two full architecture generations of separation.

The manufacturing process differs accordingly. The 9224 is fabricated on a 5 nm process, while the 7502P uses a 7 nm process. Both are produced by TSMC, but the smaller node gives the 9224 a transistor density advantage. The 9224 has 26,280 million transistors across a die size of 4x 72 mm², while the 7502P has 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The 9224 uses a multi-die configuration with four dies, while the 7502P appears to use a single 74 mm² die.

Cache layouts differ in important ways. The 9224 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7502P has 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7502P has twice the L3 cache (128 MB versus 64 MB), which can benefit certain workloads with large working sets. The 9224 has larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, which helps with per-thread performance.

Neither processor includes 3D V-Cache, according to the database. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms.

The memory architecture reflects the generational leap. The 9224's DDR5 support with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth is a major upgrade over the 7502P's DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s. The 9224 also moves to PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, whereas the 7502P is limited to PCIe Gen 4.

In terms of process node, the 5 nm TSMC node used by the 9224 is two generations ahead of the 7 nm node used by the 7502P. This explains how the 9224 achieves higher boost clocks at a similar TDP, even with fewer cores.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7502P wins in every Cinebench benchmark recorded in the head-to-head data. This makes it the clear choice for rendering workloads that behave like Cinebench, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its 32 cores and 64 threads give it a raw throughput advantage that the 9224's architecture improvements cannot overcome in these specific tests. The 7502P also has double the L3 cache at 128 MB, which may help in cache-sensitive server workloads.

The AMD EPYC 9224 wins in the broader benchmark average, with 11118 versus 10512. This suggests it performs better across a wider range of applications beyond the Cinebench suite. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz, newer Zen 4 architecture, and 5 nm process give it per-core efficiency advantages. The 9224 also wins decisively on memory bandwidth with 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s, making it the better option for memory-bound workloads such as large databases, in-memory analytics, or high-performance computing tasks that stream data through the memory controller.

The 9224's PCIe Gen 5 support with 128 lanes makes it the better choice for systems with the latest NVMe storage or GPU accelerators. The 7502P's PCIe Gen 4 support is older and offers less bandwidth per lane. For new server builds, the 9224's SP5 platform provides a modern foundation with DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5, while the 7502P's SP3 platform is tied to DDR4 and PCIe Gen 4.

For single-threaded performance, the 9224's higher boost clock and newer architecture do not translate into Cinebench wins; the 7502P leads by 11.4% to 11.5% in all single-core tests. This is counterintuitive but consistent across the recorded data. However, the 9224's average benchmark score indicates it handles other workloads better.

The practical guidance is straightforward. Choose the 7502P for Cinebench-style rendering and multi-threaded compute where the extra 8 cores matter. Choose the 9224 for modern server deployments that benefit from DDR5 memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, and a newer platform. The 9224's lower core count is offset by architectural advantages, but the recorded benchmarks show those advantages do not appear in Cinebench. The 9224's launch MSRP is $1825, which is the only pricing information available in the database.