AMD EPYC 7702P vs AMD EPYC 9254 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data for the AMD EPYC 9254 and the AMD EPYC 7702P shows a consistent pattern across all six Cinebench tests: the EPYC 9254 wins every single head-to-head comparison. The margins are narrow, but they are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 9254 scores 5490 against 5272 for the EPYC 7702P, a lead of 4.1 percent. The single-core R15 result follows the same shape: 774 versus 744, a 4 percent advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows 22878 for the EPYC 9254 and 21969 for the EPYC 7702P, again a 4.1 percent gap. Single-core R20 continues the trend: 3229 versus 3101, a 4.1 percent difference. In Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three rendering workloads, the EPYC 9254 posts 54473 multi-core and 7690 single-core, while the EPYC 7702P records 52308 and 7384 respectively. Both margins sit at 4.1 percent. The data indicates that the EPYC 9254 holds a steady, if modest, performance edge across every workload measured, with a total of 6 wins and 0 losses in the head-to-head table.

What stands out is the consistency of the delta. Whether the test stresses all cores or just one, the EPYC 9254 leads by roughly the same percentage. This suggests the advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental property of the newer architecture. The EPYC 7702P, despite having 64 cores against the EPYC 9254's 24, cannot translate its higher core count into a multi-core victory. The older Zen 2 design falls behind in raw rendering throughput even when the workload should favor more parallel execution. The single-core results reinforce this: the EPYC 9254's boost clock of 4.15 GHz, combined with Zen 4's higher instructions per clock, delivers a clear edge over the EPYC 7702P's 3.35 GHz boost.

Looking at the broader database context, the EPYC 9254's average benchmark score is 15756, placing it at the 69th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9354P at 15826, which is 0.4 percent ahead, and the AMD EPYC 75F3 at 15859, which is 0.6 percent ahead. The EPYC 7702P, by contrast, has an average score of 15130, also at the 69th percentile, with rivals such as the Intel Core i3-1315U at 15022 (0.7 percent behind) and the Intel Core 5 211TE at 15370 (1.6 percent ahead). The two AMD server chips sit in the same percentile band, but the EPYC 9254's average score is roughly 4 percent higher, matching the head-to-head deltas.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The AMD EPYC 9254 wins all three multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 5490 versus 5272 for the EPYC 7702P. In R20 multi-core, the margin is 22878 versus 21969. In R23 multi-core, the EPYC 9254 scores 54473 versus 52308. The delta is 4.1 percent in each case.

Q: Does the EPYC 7702P have any single-core advantage?

A: No. The EPYC 9254 wins every single-core test as well. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 774 versus 744. In R20 single-core, it scores 3229 versus 3101. In R23 single-core, it scores 7690 versus 7384. The margins are 4 percent in R15 and 4.1 percent in R20 and R23.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 9254 has an average benchmark score of 15756, while the EPYC 7702P has an average score of 15130. The EPYC 9254 is ahead by roughly 4 percent, consistent with the head-to-head results.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads. The EPYC 9254 has 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the EPYC 9254 still wins all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9254 supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC 7702P supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC 9254's memory bandwidth is more than double.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: Yes. Both the EPYC 9254 and the EPYC 7702P are listed as active production parts. The EPYC 9254 was released on 2022-11-09, while the EPYC 7702P was released on 2019-08-06.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD's EPYC line. The EPYC 9254 belongs to the EPYC 9004 series, codenamed Genoa, and is built on the Zen 4 architecture. The EPYC 7702P belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, codenamed Rome, and uses the Zen 2 architecture. This generational gap drives nearly every other difference between the two.

The manufacturing process is a major divider. The EPYC 9254 is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, while the EPYC 7702P uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows for higher transistor density and better power efficiency. Interestingly, the transistor counts reported in the database are not directly comparable: the EPYC 9254 lists 26,280 million transistors across a die size of 4x 72 mm², while the EPYC 7702P lists 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. These figures reflect how the database records different packaging and chiplet configurations, not a simple per-core comparison.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The EPYC 9254 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7702P has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC 7702P offers more total L3 cache, but the EPYC 9254's per-core L2 is double, which can benefit latency-sensitive single-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The EPYC 9254 uses DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, delivering a theoretical bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC 7702P uses DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The newer platform also moves to PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes available from the CPU on the EPYC 9254, whereas the EPYC 7702P supports PCIe Gen 4. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server-class parts.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The EPYC 9254 uses AMD Socket SP5, while the EPYC 7702P uses AMD Socket SP3. These are not interchangeable, so any system upgrade requires a platform change, not just a CPU swap. The EPYC 9254 also has a newer release date, arriving in November 2022, compared to August 2019 for the EPYC 7702P.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious specification gap. The EPYC 9254 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the EPYC 7702P has 64 cores and 128 threads. Clock speeds tell a different story: the EPYC 9254 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.15 GHz, while the EPYC 7702P has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (which is 2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The EPYC 9254 is substantially faster in both base and boost operation.

Both CPUs have a TDP of 200, making them comparable in thermal design power. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either part. The EPYC 9254 carries a launch MSRP of $2299, while the EPYC 7702P has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The market segment for both is listed as Server/Workstation, and both have integrated graphics listed as null, meaning they rely on discrete or remote graphics solutions.

The EPYC 9254 uses DDR5 memory, while the EPYC 7702P uses DDR4. The memory bus widths differ as well: twelve channels for the EPYC 9254 versus eight channels for the EPYC 7702P. This results in the bandwidth gap noted earlier, 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. The EPYC 9254 also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC 7702P supports PCIe Gen 4 without a lane count specified in the database.

Process node and architecture differ, as covered in the previous section. The EPYC 9254 is Zen 4 on 5 nm, and the EPYC 7702P is Zen 2 on 7 nm. The part numbers are distinct: 100-100000480 for the EPYC 9254 and 100-000000047 for the EPYC 7702P.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9254 outperforms the AMD EPYC 7702P in every measured test. Across all six Cinebench workloads, the EPYC 9254 holds a lead of either 4 percent or 4.1 percent. This is true in both multi-core and single-core scenarios, which is notable because the EPYC 7702P has more than double the core count. The EPYC 9254 achieves this with 24 cores and 48 threads, relying on its Zen 4 architecture, higher clock speeds, and faster memory subsystem.

For workloads that depend on single-thread performance, the choice is clear. The EPYC 9254's boost clock of 4.15 GHz, combined with the architectural improvements of Zen 4 over Zen 2, delivers a consistent edge. Even in heavily threaded tasks where the EPYC 7702P's 64 cores should theoretically dominate, the EPYC 9254 still comes out ahead. The data suggests that the EPYC 7702P's older design cannot compensate for its core-count advantage, likely due to lower per-core throughput and a slower memory interface.

The EPYC 9254 also brings modern platform features, including DDR5 memory support, a twelve-channel memory bus, and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity. These are meaningful for new server deployments where memory bandwidth and I/O throughput matter. The EPYC 7702P, while still an active product, is based on older technology that may require platform compromises. The launch MSRP of $2299 for the EPYC 9254 provides a reference point, though the database does not include a comparable figure for the EPYC 7702P.

The one area where the EPYC 7702P could be preferred is in scenarios that require a very high core count for parallel scaling beyond what the benchmarks capture. The EPYC 7702P offers 64 cores and 128 threads, which could be advantageous in virtualized environments or specific HPC workloads where the software scales linearly with core count. However, the recorded Cinebench results do not show such an advantage; the EPYC 9254 wins even in multi-core tests. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the EPYC 9254 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9254 wins in all six head-to-head benchmark categories. In multi-core tests, it beats the EPYC 7702P by 4.1 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In single-core tests, it wins by 4 percent in R15 and by 4.1 percent in R20 and R23. This makes the EPYC 9254 the pick for rendering, simulation, and any workload where Cinebench results are representative of performance.

The EPYC 9254 also wins in memory bandwidth. Its DDR5 support with a twelve-channel bus delivers 460.8 GB/s, which is more than double the 204.8 GB/s of the EPYC 7702P. Applications that are sensitive to memory throughput, such as large database operations or data analytics, would benefit from this advantage. The PCIe Gen 5 support with 128 lanes is another point in its favor for high-bandwidth storage or GPU clusters.

The EPYC 7702P does not win any recorded benchmark. Its strengths are limited to its specifications on paper: 64 cores, 128 threads, and 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The database does not include a workload where these specs translate into a victory. However, the higher core count could be relevant in environments where the operating system or hypervisor schedules many independent virtual machines, and the per-core performance is less critical than the total number of threads available. The larger L3 cache, 256 MB versus 128 MB, could also help in scenarios with large working sets that fit within cache.

The EPYC 7702P also has a longer production history, having been released in August 2019, and it remains active. For organizations with existing SP3 platforms, the EPYC 7702P could serve as a drop-in upgrade path without changing the motherboard or memory. The EPYC 9254, by contrast, requires a new SP5 platform and DDR5 memory, which represents a broader system overhaul.

In summary, the EPYC 9254 is the winner in every measured category. The EPYC 7702P retains a theoretical edge in core count and cache size, but the recorded data does not show those advantages translating into benchmark wins. For anyone choosing between these two processors based on the database, the EPYC 9254 is the stronger performer across the board.