AMD EPYC 75F3 vs AMD EPYC 7702P Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 75F3 is the clear performance leader in this comparison, winning all six recorded head-to-head benchmark tests by a consistent 4.8% margin. The data shows a processor that outperforms the AMD EPYC 7702P across every measured workload, from single-threaded Cinebench tests to heavily multithreaded render workloads. It achieves this with 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly half the core count of the 7702P, yet still comes out ahead in multicore tests thanks to its newer Zen 3 architecture and dramatically higher clock speeds.

The AMD EPYC 7702P, however, is not without its own argument. It offers 64 cores and 128 threads, double the core and thread count of the 75F3, with a lower 200 W TDP compared to the 75F3's 280 W. The benchmark results indicate that the 75F3 edges it out in raw Cinebench scores, but the 7702P remains a viable option for workloads that scale with core count and where power efficiency is a primary concern. It also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking among all CPUs, at the 69th percentile versus the 75F3's 70th, which is a negligible difference.

The choice comes down to priorities. For users who need the absolute fastest Cinebench performance and are willing to accept a higher core count and newer architecture, the AMD EPYC 75F3 is the obvious pick. For those who value the massive 64-core, 128-thread configuration and lower power draw, the AMD EPYC 7702P is the more balanced choice, even if it trails in benchmark scores. The 75F3 wins on performance; the 7702P wins on core density and power efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins in every single benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes the lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both in single-core and multi-core tests. The consistency of the 4.8% delta across all tests is notable; it suggests that the 75F3's architectural advantages, namely Zen 3 versus Zen 2 and higher boost clocks, translate into a uniform performance uplift regardless of workload type. The single-core wins are particularly significant, as they indicate better responsiveness in lightly threaded applications and higher instruction-level efficiency.

The AMD EPYC 7702P, while losing every recorded benchmark, still has a structural advantage that is not captured in the Cinebench scores. It offers 64 cores and 128 threads, which is double the 75F3's 32 cores and 64 threads. This means that in workloads not represented in the benchmark suite, such as certain database or virtualization tasks that scale almost linearly with core count, the 7702P could potentially close the gap or even overtake the 75F3. The database does not include such tests, so this remains speculative, but the core count difference is a tangible fact. Additionally, the 7702P has a 200 W TDP versus the 75F3's 280 W, making it the more power-efficient option per core and overall.

The verdict is clear: the 75F3 wins where it is measured, and the 7702P wins on paper where core count and power draw matter most.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD's EPYC lineup. The AMD EPYC 75F3 is built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, while the AMD EPYC 7702P uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename. Both are manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, so the process node is identical, but the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly.

The 75F3 has 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 2.95 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The 75F3's higher clocks, especially the 4.00 GHz boost, are a major factor in its benchmark superiority. The 7702P's lower clocks are a trade-off for the doubled core count, likely to stay within its 200 W TDP.

Cache configurations differ as well. The 75F3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, while the 7702P has 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. Both share a 256 MB L3 cache, so total L3 is identical. The transistor counts are listed as 33,200 million for the 75F3 and 3,800 million for the 7702P, with die sizes of 8x 81 mm² and 74 mm² respectively; these figures reflect different packaging and chiplet configurations, though both use the same 7 nm TSMC process.

Memory support is the same: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe support differs slightly in the database: the 75F3 lists "Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only)" while the 7702P simply lists "Gen 4." Both use the AMD Socket SP3. The 75F3 has a launch MSRP of $4860, while the 7702P has no listed launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both target the server and workstation market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads, double the 32 cores and 64 threads of the AMD EPYC 75F3.

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, with a 4.8% delta over the 7702P in every case.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 has a TDP of 280 W, while the AMD EPYC 7702P has a lower TDP of 200 W.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The 75F3 has a base clock of 2.95 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the 7702P has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz.

Q: Which architecture does each processor use?

A: The AMD EPYC 75F3 uses the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, and the AMD EPYC 7702P uses the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably consistent. In every single recorded test, the AMD EPYC 75F3 wins by exactly 4.8% over the AMD EPYC 7702P. This uniformity suggests that the performance gap is primarily due to architectural efficiency and clock speed rather than workload-specific scaling, since the delta does not change between single-core and multi-core tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 75F3 scores 5526 against the 7702P's 5272, a 4.8% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 780 for the 75F3 versus 744 for the 7702P, again a 4.8% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core results are 23028 for the 75F3 and 21969 for the 7702P, with the single-core test showing 3250 versus 3101. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows 54829 for the 75F3 and 52308 for the 7702P, while the single-core test shows 7740 versus 7384.

The most striking observation is that the 75F3 achieves these multicore wins with only half the cores of the 7702P. This is a direct consequence of the Zen 3 architecture's higher instructions per clock and the much higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus 3.35 GHz. The 7702P's 64 cores cannot compensate for the per-core performance deficit in these Cinebench workloads, which are known to be sensitive to both clock speed and IPC.

The average benchmark score data reinforces this picture. The 75F3 has an average benchmark score of 15859, while the 7702P has an average of 15130. The 75F3's nearest rival in the database is the AMD Ryzen 5 40, which scores 15882 and is 0.1% ahead, a negligible difference. The 7702P's closest rival is the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022, which is 0.7% behind. These percentile and rival comparisons place both processors in a similar performance tier, but the 75F3 sits slightly higher in the overall ranking.

For users relying on Cinebench as a proxy for rendering and CPU-heavy workstation tasks, the data is unambiguous: the 75F3 is the faster processor. The 7702P's value proposition rests entirely on its 64-core, 128-thread configuration and lower 200 W TDP, which are not reflected in the Cinebench scores but may matter in other server deployments. The recorded data, however, gives the 75F3 a clean sweep.