AMD EPYC 8024P vs AMD Ryzen 5 7600 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8024P and AMD Ryzen 5 7600 both land at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 26,555 for the EPYC versus 26,324 for the Ryzen. Yet the head-to-head data shows a clear split: the Ryzen 5 7600 wins 12 of 15 benchmark comparisons, while the EPYC 8024P wins only 3. This is a case where the overall average masks a fundamental divergence in workload behavior, driven by architecture and platform design rather than raw compute capability.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 as the stronger choice for general-purpose and single-threaded workloads. It wins decisively in PassMark single-thread scoring with 3,910 points versus the EPYC’s 2,371 — a 39.4% advantage. It also leads in multi-threaded PassMark tests (27,058 vs 20,556), integer math (80,581 vs 62,128), and floating-point math (48,107 vs 34,757). For users running desktop applications, content creation, or software that favors higher clock speeds, the Ryzen 5 7600 is the clear winner.

The AMD EPYC 8024P, however, takes the crown in Cinebench R23 — both multi-core and single-core — with scores of 17,472 (37.2% ahead) and 2,466 (33.2% ahead) respectively. It also wins PassMark physics with 1,905 versus 1,776 (7.3% ahead). This suggests the EPYC’s Zen 4c architecture performs better in certain sustained render workloads, despite its lower clock speeds. Server and workstation users running Cinebench-style rendering or physics simulations should consider the EPYC 8024P.

The verdict hinges on use case. For desktop users, the Ryzen 5 7600 offers superior performance across most measurable benchmarks. For server environments prioritizing specific render tasks, the EPYC 8024P’s wins in Cinebench R23 are significant enough to warrant consideration.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 7600 dominates in nearly every PassMark subtest. Its wins include data compression (304,942 vs 232,242), data encryption (17,704 vs 15,809), extended instructions (23,071 vs 14,251), find prime numbers (200 vs 109), floating-point math (48,107 vs 34,757), integer math (80,581 vs 62,128), multithread (27,058 vs 20,556), random string sorting (35,904 vs 34,613), and single-thread (3,910 vs 2,371). It also wins both Cinebench R15 tests — multi-core (2,339 vs 1,761) and single-core (298 vs 248).

The EPYC 8024P’s wins are concentrated in Cinebench R23 and PassMark physics. Its R23 multi-core score of 17,472 is its largest margin of victory, and its R23 single-core score of 2,466 also leads. The physics test win (1,905 vs 1,776) is narrower but still significant.

The pattern suggests the Ryzen 5 7600 excels in mixed and integer-heavy workloads, while the EPYC 8024P shows strength in specific render and physics scenarios. The Ryzen’s higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz likely explains its single-thread dominance, while the EPYC’s Zen 4c architecture may handle certain sustained multi-threaded render tasks more efficiently.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use AMD’s 5 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge in architecture and design goals. The EPYC 8024P uses Zen 4c, the dense variant designed for server efficiency, while the Ryzen 5 7600 uses full Zen 4 for desktop performance. The EPYC has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Ryzen has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite fewer cores, the Ryzen achieves higher performance in most tests due to its much higher clock speeds — 3.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost versus the EPYC’s 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Cache configurations are identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 32 MB shared L3. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC, but the EPYC offers six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen offers dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s. The EPYC provides 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, versus 24 for the Ryzen. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the EPYC has none. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Ryzen uses AM5.

The transistor counts differ: 8,875 million for the EPYC versus 6,570 million for the Ryzen, despite similar die sizes (73 mm² vs 71 mm²). The EPYC’s higher transistor density aligns with its Zen 4c dense design. The Ryzen has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 7600 wins single-thread tests decisively. PassMark single-thread shows 3,910 points versus 2,371 for the EPYC 8024P, a 39.4% advantage. Cinebench R15 single-core also favors the Ryzen (298 vs 248).

Q: Why does the EPYC 8024P win Cinebench R23 despite lower clock speeds?

A: The EPYC 8024P scores 17,472 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 12,735 for the Ryzen 5 7600, a 37.2% lead. This suggests the Zen 4c architecture and server platform handle this specific render workload more efficiently, despite the Ryzen’s higher clocks.

Q: Are these processors comparable for gaming?

A: The data does not include gaming benchmarks, but the Ryzen 5 7600’s higher clock speeds and PassMark single-thread advantage (3,910 vs 2,371) suggest it would perform better in most gaming scenarios. The EPYC’s server segment and lack of integrated graphics further indicate a workstation focus.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 8024P and AMD Ryzen 5 7600 support ECC memory. However, the EPYC offers six-channel memory with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Ryzen offers dual-channel with 83.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The EPYC 8024P provides 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Ryzen 5 7600 provides 24. This makes the EPYC far more suitable for expansion-heavy server workloads.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 8024P has a launch MSRP of $409, and the AMD Ryzen 5 7600 has a launch MSRP of $229.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the Ryzen 5 7600 comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 200 versus 109 — a 45.5% advantage. PassMark single-thread follows at 39.4% (3,910 vs 2,371), and extended instructions at 38.2% (23,071 vs 14,251). These results indicate a substantial per-core performance gap, likely driven by the Ryzen’s 5.10 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz.

The Ryzen also wins PassMark floating-point math by 27.8% (48,107 vs 34,757), integer math by 22.9% (80,581 vs 62,128), and multithread by 24% (27,058 vs 20,556). Cinebench R15 multi-core shows a 24.7% Ryzen win (2,339 vs 1,761), and single-core a 16.8% win (298 vs 248). Data compression goes to the Ryzen by 23.8% (304,942 vs 232,242), and encryption by 10.7% (17,704 vs 15,809). Random string sorting is close, with the Ryzen ahead by just 3.6% (35,904 vs 34,613).

The EPYC 8024P’s biggest win is Cinebench R23 multi-core at 37.2% (17,472 vs 12,735). Its R23 single-core win is 33.2% (2,466 vs 1,852). The physics test win is modest at 7.3% (1,905 vs 1,776). These three wins are notable because they contradict the overall trend — in Cinebench R23, the EPYC reverses the Ryzen’s dominance, suggesting workload-specific architecture advantages.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in core count (8 vs 6), threads (16 vs 12), base clock (2.40 GHz vs 3.80 GHz), and boost clock (3.00 GHz vs 5.10 GHz). TDP differs significantly: 90 watts for the EPYC versus 65 watts for the Ryzen. Sockets are different (SP6 vs AM5), as are architectures (Zen 4c vs Zen 4) and codenames (Siena vs Raphael).

Memory support differs in channel count: six-channel for the EPYC versus dual-channel for the Ryzen, with bandwidth at 230.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ at 96 versus 24, both Gen 5. The Ryzen includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the EPYC has none. The EPYC has an unlocked multiplier set to false, while the Ryzen’s is true.

Transistor counts differ (8,875 million vs 6,570 million), with die sizes at 73 mm² vs 71 mm². Release dates differ: the EPYC launched on 2023-09-17, while the Ryzen launched on 2023-01-13. Market segments differ: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Part numbers also differ: 100-000001136 for the EPYC and 100-000001015 for the Ryzen.