AMD EPYC 7542 vs AMD EPYC 9224 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7542 and AMD EPYC 9224 are two server processors from different generations, and the benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest. The EPYC 7542, a 32-core Zen 2 part, edges out the 24-core Zen 4 EPYC 9224 in every single Cinebench test, though the margins are consistently razor-thin. Both processors land at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 11152 and 11118 respectively, placing them within 0.3% of each other overall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a picture of near-total parity, with the EPYC 7542 taking all six wins by margins that would be imperceptible in real-world use. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 7542 scores 3886 against the 9224’s 3874, a 0.3% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 548 versus 546, a 0.4% advantage for the older chip. Moving to Cinebench R20, the 7542 again leads in multi-core with 16193 versus 16144 (0.3% ahead), and in single-core with 2286 versus 2278 (0.4% ahead). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the 7542 posts 38555 multi-core and 5443 single-core, versus the 9224’s 38439 and 5426 — both 0.3% leads.

What’s striking here is not that the 7542 wins, but how close the 9224 comes despite having 8 fewer cores and 16 fewer threads. The 9224’s per-core efficiency is clearly superior, but the 7542’s raw core count compensates. Looking at the rival landscape, both chips sit in a tight cluster: the Ryzen 5 3500U averages 11176, the Xeon Gold 6336Y scores 11191, and the Core i3-1305U hits 11200. The 7542 is 0.2% behind the 3500U and 0.3% behind the Xeon, while the 9224 is 0.5% behind the 3500U and 0.6% behind the Xeon. These are noise-level differences, but they reinforce that neither EPYC part is breaking away from the pack.

The biggest single win for the 7542 comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where its 0.4% margin translates to just 2 points. Across all tests, the average delta is roughly 0.3%, meaning the 9224 is never more than a rounding error away from matching its predecessor. For workloads that scale with thread count, the 7542’s 32 cores give it a structural advantage, but the 9224’s newer architecture narrows the gap to near-zero.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD EPYC 7542 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark, but the margins are so small that they should not drive a purchasing decision. The 7542 wins all six head-to-head tests, yet the largest lead is just 0.4%. Both CPUs share the same 66th percentile ranking, and their average scores differ by only 34 points out of roughly 11150.

The 9224, however, brings substantial platform advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. It supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the 7542’s DDR4 with an eight-channel bus at 204.8 GB/s. The 9224 also runs on PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the 7542 uses PCIe Gen 4. For memory-bandwidth-hungry workloads or systems requiring the latest I/O, the 9224 is the clear choice despite losing on raw Cinebench scores.

The 7542 makes sense for applications that prioritize core count and thread throughput over platform modernity. Its 32 cores and 64 threads outperform the 9224’s 24 cores and 48 threads in all tests, even if only slightly. It also has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, though the 9224 boosts higher at 3.70 GHz versus 3.40 GHz. The 7542’s 128 MB of shared L3 cache is double the 9224’s 64 MB, which can benefit certain data-intensive workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of AMD’s EPYC roadmap. The 7542 is part of the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process with Zen 2 architecture. It packs 3,800 million transistors across a 74 mm² die. The 9224 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Genoa, using Zen 4 on a 5 nm process, with 26,280 million transistors spread across four 72 mm² dies. This generational leap explains why the 9224 nearly matches the 7542 despite having fewer cores.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The 7542 provides 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the 9224 offers 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. L3 cache swings the other way: 128 MB shared on the 7542 versus 64 MB shared on the 9224. Memory support is where the platforms diverge most sharply. The 7542 uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s peak bandwidth; the 9224 moves to DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s peak bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, and neither includes integrated graphics.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The 7542 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the 9224 requires AMD Socket SP5. PCIe generation also differs: the 7542 offers Gen 4, while the 9224 provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. Power envelopes are close but not identical — the 7542 has a 225 W TDP, the 9224 a 200 W TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The 9224 carries a launch MSRP of $1825; the 7542 has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD EPYC 7542 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 3886 in R15, 16193 in R20, and 38555 in R23, versus the EPYC 9224’s 3874, 16144, and 38439. The margins are 0.3% in each case.

Q: Does the newer EPYC 9224 win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the EPYC 7542 winning all six tests, including both single-core and multi-core variants of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The 9224’s best result is a 546 in R15 single-core, 2 points behind the 7542.

Q: How do these chips compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs. The 7542 has an average benchmark score of 11152, with the Ryzen 5 3500U 0.2% ahead and the Xeon Gold 6336Y 0.3% ahead. The 9224 averages 11118, placing it 0.4% behind the Core i7-6700 and 0.5% behind the Ryzen 5 3500U.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7542 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite the 8-core deficit, the 9224 trails by only 0.3% in multi-core Cinebench R23.

Q: Do they support the same memory type?

A: No. The 7542 supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus at 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The 9224 supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus at 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7542 has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 9224 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7542 also has larger L1 per core (96 KB versus 64 KB), while the 9224 has larger L2 per core (1 MB versus 512 KB).

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7542 wins on raw compute performance across every benchmark in the dataset. Its 32 cores and 64 threads give it a decisive structural edge in multi-threaded rendering, as reflected in Cinebench R23 multi-core where it scores 38555 against the 9224’s 38439. It also wins single-core tests by a small margin — 5443 versus 5426 in R23 — thanks to its higher 2.90 GHz base clock. The 7542’s 128 MB L3 cache is double the 9224’s, which can help workloads that repeatedly access large shared datasets. For systems built on the SP3 platform with DDR4 memory, the 7542 delivers maximum performance without requiring a platform migration.

The EPYC 9224 wins on platform capabilities, even though it loses every benchmark. Its DDR5 support with twelve-channel memory provides 460.8 GB/s bandwidth — more than double the 7542’s 204.8 GB/s — which is critical for memory-bound applications like large-scale virtualization, in-memory databases, or high-performance computing workloads that stream data. The 9224 also offers PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, doubling the I/O bandwidth of the 7542’s PCIe Gen 4. Its 5 nm process and 26,280 million transistors represent a newer design that achieves near-parity with the 7542 using 25% fewer cores, indicating better per-core efficiency and lower power draw at 200 W versus 225 W. The 9224’s higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz also gives it a peak-speed advantage for lightly threaded tasks, although the benchmark data shows this doesn’t translate into a win.

For users constrained to the SP3 platform, the 7542 is the obvious pick. For those building new systems, the 9224’s superior memory bandwidth, newer PCIe standard, and modern socket make it the forward-looking choice, even if its Cinebench scores are slightly lower. The data shows a tie in overall capability — the 7542 edges out the 9224 by 0.3% in average score, but the 9224 opens access to a newer platform generation that the benchmarks do not fully quantify.