AMD EPYC 7552 vs AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided contest. Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7552 wins decisively, with the Ryzen Embedded V2546 trailing by roughly 83% in every single comparison. The deltaPct values are remarkably consistent, ranging from -83.2% to -83.3%, indicating that the performance gap is uniform across both single-core and multi-core workloads rather than being skewed toward one type of task.

Starting with multi-core performance, the EPYC 7552 posts a Cinebench R23 multicore score of 48,801, while the V2546 manages 8,207. That is a 40,594-point gap, translating to the EPYC being approximately six times faster in this heavily threaded render test. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the EPYC scores 20,496 against the V2546's 3,446, and in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the EPYC reaches 4,919 versus 827. In each case, the deltaPct sits at -83.2%, meaning the V2546 delivers only about 17% of the EPYC's throughput in these multi-threaded scenarios.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margin is proportionally identical. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7552 scores 6,889, while the V2546 reaches 1,158 — again a -83.2% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,893 for the EPYC against 486 for the V2546, and Cinebench R15 single-core shows 694 versus 116. The consistency of the -83.2% to -83.3% delta across all tests suggests that the EPYC's advantage is not tied to any particular workload characteristic but rather to a fundamental architectural and resource superiority.

Notably, the V2546 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks. The EPYC 7552 wins all six. There is no test in this dataset where the embedded processor outperforms the server chip, even in single-threaded tasks where lower core counts and higher clocks often give smaller processors an edge. The V2546's boost clock of 3.95 GHz exceeds the EPYC's 3.30 GHz boost, yet the EPYC still wins single-core tests by a wide margin — a finding that points to differences beyond raw clock speed.

# Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Zen 2 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process node, yet the silicon underneath is fundamentally different. The V2546 uses the Renoir codename, while the EPYC 7552 uses Rome. Renoir is a monolithic design integrating CPU and graphics on a single die, whereas Rome is a chiplet-based server design. This is reflected in the transistor counts: the V2546 packs 9,800 million transistors on a 156 mm² die, while the EPYC 7552 uses 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die — though the EPYC's figure represents a single chiplet, not the full package.

The core and thread counts diverge sharply. The V2546 offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the EPYC 7552 provides 48 cores and 96 threads — eight times the core count and eight times the thread count. Cache configurations differ correspondingly. The V2546 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The EPYC 7552 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 192 MB of shared L3. That 192 MB L3 cache is 24 times larger than the V2546's 8 MB, a difference that heavily favors the server part in data-intensive workloads.

Memory architecture is another major differentiator. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, but the V2546 runs dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC 7552 runs eight-channel with 204.8 GB/s — exactly four times the bandwidth. PCIe connectivity also diverges: the V2546 provides Gen 3 with 20 lanes, while the EPYC 7552 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes, a six-fold increase in lane count and a full generation ahead in protocol.

The EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics, whereas the V2546 includes Radeon Graphics with 384 shader processors. This makes the V2546 a self-contained solution for embedded systems, while the EPYC 7552 requires a discrete GPU. The TDP figures reflect their respective market positions: the V2546 draws 35 W, while the EPYC 7552 draws 200 W — a nearly six-fold difference in power envelope. Sockets also differ entirely: the V2546 uses AMD Socket FP6, while the EPYC 7552 uses AMD Socket SP3.

Clock speeds favor the embedded part on paper. The V2546 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost of 3.95 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 2.20 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Yet the EPYC still wins every single-core benchmark, which suggests that the EPYC's higher per-core cache allocation and memory bandwidth more than compensate for its lower clocks. The V2546's 64 KB L1 per core versus the EPYC's 96 KB L1 per core is one plausible contributor.

# Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7552 wins in every benchmark category present in the dataset, so the "where each one wins" split is defined by workload type rather than by benchmark victories. For heavily parallel workloads, the EPYC is in a different class. Multi-core Cinebench scores show the EPYC delivering roughly six times the throughput of the V2546, making it the clear choice for render farms, scientific computing, virtualization hosts, and any workload that can scale across 96 threads. The 192 MB L3 cache and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth also position it strongly for large in-memory databases and data analytics where cache hits and memory throughput are critical.

Single-core workloads still favor the EPYC, but the margin is proportionally identical to multi-core. This is unusual — typically a lower-clocked, higher-core-count server chip loses single-core tests to a higher-clocked consumer or embedded part. Here, the EPYC's 68th percentile ranking among all CPUs versus the V2546's 69th percentile suggests they sit in a similar overall performance class, but the EPYC's superior per-core resources (96 KB L1, shared L3, eight-channel memory) give it the edge even at lower clocks.

The V2546's only advantages are qualitative rather than benchmark-driven. It includes integrated Radeon Graphics, which the EPYC lacks, making it suitable for compact systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. Its 35 W TDP makes it far easier to cool and power in embedded chassis, and its 20 PCIe Gen 3 lanes may suffice for smaller I/O footprints. In the PassMark suite, the V2546 posts scores that place it in the same percentile band as the EPYC, though those benchmarks are not part of the head-to-head comparison. The V2546's PassMark single-thread score of 1,609 and multithread score of 9,656 indicate it is a capable processor for its power class, but the EPYC's Cinebench dominance is overwhelming.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7552 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 has 6 cores and 12 threads — an eightfold difference in both core count and thread count.

Q: Does the EPYC 7552 win every head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7552 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltaPct values of -83.2% or -83.3% in each case. The V2546 wins zero head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The EPYC 7552 has 192 MB of shared L3 cache, while the V2546 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC's L3 is 24 times larger.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the V2546 and the EPYC 7552 support ECC memory. Both also support DDR4, but the EPYC uses an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the V2546 uses dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The V2546 includes Radeon Graphics with 384 shader processors. The EPYC 7552 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The V2546 has a 35 W TDP, while the EPYC 7552 has a 200 W TDP. The EPYC draws nearly six times the power of the V2546.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 | AMD EPYC 7552 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 48 |

| Threads | 12 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.95 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 200 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP6 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Codename | Renoir | Rome |

| Transistors | 9,800 million | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | 156 mm² | 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 192 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon Graphics 384SP | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2020-11-09 | 2019-08-06 |

| Part Number | 100-000000246 | 100-000000076 |

The two processors share identical L2 cache (512 KB per core), process node (7 nm), foundry (TSMC), architecture (Zen 2), and ECC memory support. Both are active production parts with locked multipliers. The EPYC 7552 has a launch MSRP of $4025; the V2546 has no listed launch MSRP.

# The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity. The AMD EPYC 7552 outperforms the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 in every benchmark recorded, with a consistent -83.2% to -83.3% delta across all six Cinebench tests. For any workload measured in this dataset — single-core or multi-core — the EPYC 7552 is the superior processor by a substantial margin. Its 48 cores, 96 threads, 192 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth make it the obvious choice for server and workstation deployments where raw compute throughput is paramount.

The V2546's case rests entirely on characteristics not captured in the benchmark scores. Its 35 W TDP, integrated Radeon Graphics, and compact FP6 socket make it suited for embedded systems where power efficiency, small footprint, and display output matter more than peak performance. Its 69th percentile ranking versus the EPYC's 68th percentile shows they occupy similar overall performance tiers when averaged across all CPUs, but that similarity is misleading — the EPYC's average benchmark score of 14,115 is actually lower than the V2546's 14,336, despite winning every head-to-head test. This discrepancy arises because the two chips draw from different benchmark pools, with the EPYC's PassMark results not included in the head-to-head comparison.

For buyers choosing between these two, the decision is straightforward. If the workload demands maximum multi-threaded performance — rendering, virtualization, data processing — the EPYC 7552 is the only rational choice. It delivers roughly six times the multi-core throughput of the V2546, and even its single-core performance is superior despite a lower boost clock. If the application requires an embedded processor with integrated graphics and a 35 W power envelope, the V2546 is the appropriate part, but it will sacrifice approximately 83% of the EPYC's Cinebench performance to achieve that efficiency. There is no benchmark in this dataset where the V2546 wins, so the selection hinges entirely on non-performance factors like power, size, and graphics capability.