AMD EPYC 7552 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3501U Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U and AMD EPYC 7552 represent two extremes of AMD’s product stack: a 15-watt mobile processor designed for thin-and-light laptops, and a 200-watt server behemoth built for datacenter workloads. The data in the FACT PACK shows two very different chips, and while their overall average benchmark scores are surprisingly close, the individual test results reveal a clear division of labor. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, the architectural gap, and the specific use cases where each processor dominates.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking finding is the near-parity in overall average benchmark scores. The Ryzen 5 3501U scores an average of 14,320 across its benchmark suite, while the EPYC 7552 averages 14,115. That is a difference of only 1.5%, with the mobile chip edging ahead. This is remarkable given the EPYC’s 48 cores and 96 threads versus the Ryzen’s 4 cores and 4 threads. The explanation lies in the types of tests each processor was subjected to: the Ryzen ran a PassMark suite focused on consumer tasks, while the EPYC ran Cinebench render tests. The data does not provide direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons, so the wins must be inferred from the available scores.

Looking at the raw numbers, the EPYC 7552’s Cinebench results are overwhelming. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 48,801. In R20 multicore, it scores 20,496. In R15 multicore, it scores 4,919. These are figures that speak to massive parallel throughput. The Ryzen 5 3501U has no Cinebench scores in the FACT PACK, so a direct comparison in rendering is impossible. However, the EPYC’s single-core Cinebench scores—6,889 in R23, 2,893 in R20, and 694 in R15—are strong for a server chip, indicating that even on lightly threaded rendering tasks, it is not a slouch.

The Ryzen 5 3501U’s PassMark scores tell a different story. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 2,136. In PassMark integer math, it scores 26,321. In floating-point math, it scores 12,707. In data compression, it scores 87,380. These are respectable numbers for a 15-watt part. The EPYC 7552 has no PassMark scores listed, so the comparison is asymmetric. The data shows that the Ryzen 5 3501U is competitive in single-threaded and lightly threaded consumer workloads, while the EPYC is a monster in multi-threaded rendering.

The percentiles place both chips in the same tier. The Ryzen 5 3501U sits at the 69th percentile of all CPUs, while the EPYC 7552 is at the 68th percentile. Their nearest rivals reflect this clustering. The Ryzen 5 3501U is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546, 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core 7 160UL. The EPYC 7552 is 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon 6756E, 0.5% behind the Intel Core i5-10400F, and 0.8% behind the Intel Core 7 160UL. Both chips are effectively in the same performance neighborhood when averaged out, but the underlying workloads could not be more different.

The Verdict

From the data, the verdict is straightforward. The AMD EPYC 7552 is the clear choice for multi-threaded, server-side workloads. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,801 dwarfs anything the Ryzen 5 3501U can produce, and its 48 cores and 96 threads are purpose-built for parallel tasks like virtualization, database processing, and 3D rendering. The 200-watt TDP and eight-channel DDR4 memory with ECC support confirm its datacenter intent.

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U is the pick for mobile and light-duty computing. Its 15-watt TDP, integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, and PassMark single-thread score of 2,136 make it suitable for everyday productivity, web browsing, and office applications. The data shows no Cinebench scores for the Ryzen, so it is not positioned for heavy rendering. Its 4 MB of shared L3 cache and dual-channel DDR4 memory are adequate for its intended segment.

There is no scenario in the data where these two chips compete directly. A user needing a laptop processor would not consider a 200-watt server chip, and a server administrator would not deploy a 4-core mobile part. The data supports the conclusion that the EPYC 7552 wins on raw throughput, while the Ryzen 5 3501U wins on efficiency and integrated functionality.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is wide. The Ryzen 5 3501U is built on the Picasso codename, which is Zen+ architecture. It uses a 12 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The EPYC 7552 is based on Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome. It uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, with 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The EPYC uses a chiplet design, which is typical for server parts, while the Ryzen uses a monolithic design.

The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 12 nm. The smaller node allows for higher density and efficiency, which is why the EPYC can pack 48 cores into a die that is physically smaller than the Ryzen’s. The transistor counts are also revealing. The Ryzen has more transistors (4,940 million) but on a larger die, while the EPYC has fewer transistors (3,800 million) on a much smaller die. This reflects the different design goals: the Ryzen integrates Vega graphics and a memory controller on a single die, while the EPYC relies on multiple chiplets connected by Infinity Fabric.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge: the Ryzen has 4 MB of shared L3, while the EPYC has 192 MB of shared L3. That is a 48x difference in L3 capacity, which is critical for server workloads that need to keep large datasets close to the cores.

The integrated graphics situation is binary. The Ryzen 5 3501U includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics, while the EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics at all. This aligns with their market segments: mobile processors need GPU output, while server processors assume a discrete GPU or no display output.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows clear divergences across every major field. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. Base clocks are close: 2.10 GHz for the Ryzen versus 2.20 GHz for the EPYC. Boost clocks favor the Ryzen at 3.70 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the EPYC. This is expected, as lower-core-count parts typically boost higher.

Thermal design power is a stark contrast. The Ryzen 5 3501U is rated at 15 watts, while the EPYC 7552 is rated at 200 watts. That is a 13x difference in power envelope. The sockets are incompatible: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket FP5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Memory support differs as well. Both support DDR4, but the Ryzen uses a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is not supported on the Ryzen but is supported on the EPYC.

PCIe capabilities are distinct. The Ryzen 5 3501U supports PCIe Gen 3, while the EPYC 7552 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The release dates are also far apart: the Ryzen 5 3501U lists a release date of May 31, 2026, while the EPYC 7552 was released on August 6, 2019. The EPYC 7552 has a launch MSRP of $4025, which is stated once here; the Ryzen 5 3501U has no listed launch MSRP. The Ryzen’s part number is YM3501C4T4MFG, while the EPYC’s is 100-000000076. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U has an average benchmark score of 14,320, which is 1.5% higher than the AMD EPYC 7552’s average of 14,115.

Q: How do the core and thread counts compare?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads. The EPYC has 12 times the cores and 24 times the threads.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7552 has 192 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC has 48 times more L3 cache.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U does not support ECC memory, while the EPYC 7552 does support ECC memory.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U uses a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the EPYC 7552 uses a 7 nm process from TSMC.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 5 3501U includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics, while the EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U wins in all scenarios that favor mobility, efficiency, and integrated functionality. Its 15-watt TDP makes it suitable for laptops and other battery-powered devices. The integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics means no discrete GPU is required for basic display output. Its PassMark single-thread score of 2,136 and data compression score of 87,380 indicate strength in everyday tasks like file handling, web browsing, and office productivity. The higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz also gives it an advantage in lightly threaded applications that rely on a single core. The 69th percentile ranking places it above the EPYC’s 68th percentile in the overall CPU distribution.

The AMD EPYC 7552 wins in all scenarios that demand massive parallel computation. Its Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,801 is the standout figure, indicating dominance in 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. The 192 MB of L3 cache and eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth make it ideal for data-intensive server workloads. The 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes provide extensive I/O connectivity for storage and networking. ECC memory support ensures data integrity in mission-critical environments. The 200-watt TDP is a non-issue in a server chassis with robust cooling.

For a user choosing between these two, the decision is dictated by the workload. The Ryzen 5 3501U is the data-backed pick for a portable, low-power system with integrated graphics. The EPYC 7552 is the data-backed pick for a high-throughput server or workstation that needs every core and every megabyte of cache available. The benchmark data does not show a single winner; it shows two specialists, each optimized for a different tier of computing.