AMD EPYC 7573X vs AMD EPYC 7H12 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably tight contest between the AMD EPYC 7H12 and the AMD EPYC 7573X. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7H12 claims victory, but the margins are consistently slender. In the R15 multicore test, the 7H12 scores 5965 against the 7573X's 5948, a delta of 0.3%. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 842 versus 839, a 0.4% edge for the 7H12. These are not commanding leads; they are statistical near-ties that nonetheless favor the 7H12 in every recorded instance.

Moving to R20, the 7H12 posts 24858 in multicore while the 7573X trails at 24787, again a 0.3% difference. The R20 single-core scores are 3509 and 3499 respectively, with the same 0.3% delta. The R23 multicore benchmark shows 59188 for the 7H12 against 59017 for the 7573X, and the R23 single-core test yields 8355 versus 8331. In every single test, the 7H12 wins by less than half a percentage point. The aggregate picture is one of near-parity, with the 7H12 holding a perfect 6-0 record in head-to-head wins but never by a margin that would suggest a class difference.

The average benchmark scores confirm this narrative. The 7H12 averages 17120 across all tests, while the 7573X averages 17070. This places the 7H12 just 0.3% ahead in overall performance. Both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same performance tier. The nearest rivals list for the 7H12 includes the 7573X itself with a deltaPct of 0.3%, while the 7573X's list shows the 7H12 at -0.3% — a mirror image confirming the two are effectively interchangeable in raw benchmark output.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two EPYC processors is substantial, even though their benchmark results converge. The 7H12 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, while the 7573X uses Zen 3 under the Milan-X codename. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The 7H12 packs 3,800 million transistors across a single 74 mm² die, whereas the 7573X contains 33,200 million transistors spread across eight 81 mm² dies. This reflects the chiplet-based design philosophy that evolved between generations.

Core counts differ dramatically. The 7H12 offers 64 cores and 128 threads, double the 32 cores and 64 threads of the 7573X. Despite having half the cores, the 7573X matches the 7H12's benchmark performance, which speaks to the efficiency gains of Zen 3. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the 7H12 runs at a 2.60 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, while the 7573X operates at 2.80 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The 7573X's higher clocks partially compensate for its fewer cores.

Cache configurations reveal the most striking divergence. The 7H12 features 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The 7573X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache — three times the L3 capacity of the 7H12. This 768 MB of L3 is the defining feature of the Milan-X design, providing a vast cache pool that can hold entire working sets for cache-sensitive workloads. Both processors support DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus with identical 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. They share the AMD Socket SP3 and use PCIe Gen 4, though the 7573X specifies 128 lanes (CPU only) while the 7H12 simply lists Gen 4.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the 7H12 winning all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are so small that the practical implications require careful reading. The 7H12's advantage is consistent — it wins by 0.3% or 0.4% in every test — which suggests a slight overall performance edge in Cinebench's rendering workloads. This is notable given the 7H12's double core count; the 7573X's superior clocks and cache architecture nearly erase that core advantage in this specific benchmark suite.

For single-core performance, the 7H12 leads by 0.4% in R15 and 0.3% in both R20 and R23. These differences are within run-to-run variance for most real-world testing, but the consistency across all three Cinebench versions indicates a genuine, if tiny, advantage. The 7H12's higher L1 cache per core (96 KB versus 64 KB) may contribute to this edge in single-threaded workloads.

In multi-core scenarios, the 7H12's 64 cores should theoretically dominate the 7573X's 32 cores, yet the margin remains just 0.3%. This suggests the 7573X's 768 MB of L3 cache is exceptionally effective at feeding its cores, and its higher boost clock (3.60 GHz versus 3.30 GHz) helps close the core-count gap. For workloads that scale well with core count and fit within the 7H12's 256 MB L3, the 7H12 holds a slight edge. For workloads with large working sets that exceed 256 MB but fit within 768 MB, the 7573X's cache advantage may flip the result in real applications, even though Cinebench does not capture this.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7H12 has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7573X has 32 cores and 64 threads — exactly half as many.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The 7H12 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 7573X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, which is three times the capacity.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The 7H12 runs at 2.60 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The 7573X runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, making it faster in both metrics.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The 7H12 scores 59188 versus the 7573X's 59017, a 0.3% difference in favor of the 7H12.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use TSMC's 7 nm process, though the 7H12 uses a single 74 mm² die while the 7573X uses eight 81 mm² dies.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the 7573X?

A: The launch MSRP is $5590. The 7H12 has no listed launch MSRP in the data.

The Verdict

The data presents a paradoxical choice. The 7H12 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, yet the 7573X matches it almost exactly while using half the cores. For workloads that are purely Cinebench-style rendering, the 7H12 is the marginally faster option — its 64 cores and larger L1 cache give it a consistent edge of 0.3% to 0.4%. The 7H12 also holds a higher average benchmark score (17120 versus 17070) and a higher percentile ranking relative to its nearest rivals.

However, the 7573X's architectural advantages point to different strengths. Its 768 MB of L3 cache is a massive resource that Cinebench does not fully exercise. For database workloads, large in-memory datasets, or scientific computing where cache residency matters, the 7573X's cache could deliver outsized benefits that the benchmark suite fails to capture. Its higher base and boost clocks (2.80/3.60 GHz versus 2.60/3.30 GHz) also give it an edge in latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, even if Cinebench shows the 7H12 ahead by a hair.

The 7573X offers a 32-core configuration with a launch MSRP of $5590, while the 7H12 has no listed price. For those who need maximum core count for parallel throughput, the 7H12 is the clear choice — it doubles the cores while edging out the 7573X in every recorded test. For those whose workloads are cache-bound and benefit from the 768 MB L3 pool, the 7573X's architecture is designed for that scenario, even though the benchmark data cannot demonstrate it. Both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a performance outlier in either direction. The decision hinges on whether the user prioritizes the proven, if marginal, benchmark wins of the 7H12 or the theoretical cache advantages of the 7573X.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7H12 | AMD EPYC 7573X |

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

| Series | None | EPYC 7003 series |

| Cores | 64 | 32 |

| Threads | 128 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Rome | Milan-X |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)) | EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 33,200 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 768 MB (shared) |

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

| Release Date | 2019-09-17 | 2022-03-21 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $5590 |

| Part Number | 100-000000055 | 100-000000506WOF100-000000506 |