AMD EPYC 7502

The AMD EPYC 7502 is a 32-core, 64-thread server processor built on the Zen 2 architecture and manufactured on a 7 nm process. It belongs to the EPYC 7002 series (codenamed "Rome") and is designed for the AMD Socket SP3 platform. Its benchmark profile places it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs tested, with an average benchmark score of 12,709, indicating strong multi-threaded capabilities balanced against a moderate single-thread showing.

Benchmark Performance

The EPYC 7502’s multi-threaded scores are its defining characteristic. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it reaches 43,940 points, while in Cinebench R20 multi-core it scores 18,454, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core it achieves 4,428 points. These figures reflect a processor that scales aggressively across its 32 physical cores and 64 threads, making it suitable for heavily parallel workloads like rendering, simulation, and large-scale data processing. The average benchmark score of 12,709 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals, yet the composition of that average is what matters.

Comparing to the listed nearest rivals, the EPYC 7502’s aggregate score sits nearly identical to the Intel Core i7-1185G7 (12,715, 0% delta) and the Intel Xeon Gold 6348 (12,746, -0.3% delta). Against the Intel Core i3-12100, it is 0.2% ahead (12,682), and it leads the Intel Core i3-10105F by 0.6% (12,631). These deltas are negligible in aggregate terms. However, this near-parity masks a fundamental split: the EPYC 7502 likely achieves its score through massive multi-thread throughput, whereas the rival Core i3 and i7 parts achieve theirs through higher single-thread performance. The data shows that in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC 7502 scores 6,203, while its multi-core score of 43,940 is over seven times higher. This ratio suggests that the average benchmark score is heavily weighted toward multi-thread tests, where the EPYC 7502 excels. The Xeon Gold 6348, being another server chip, is the closest architectural analogue in the rival list, but the EPYC 7502 still trails it by 0.3% in average score, implying the Xeon holds a slight edge in the specific mix of benchmarks used.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The gap between the EPYC 7502’s single-thread and multi-thread results is informative for workload allocation. In Cinebench R23, the single-core score is 6,203 against a multi-core score of 43,940, a ratio of roughly 7.1:1. For Cinebench R20, the single-core score is 2,605 versus 18,454 multi-core, a ratio of 7.1:1 as well. In Cinebench R15, the single-core score is 625 versus 4,428 multi-core, a ratio of 7.1:1. This consistent ratio across all three Cinebench versions indicates that the processor scales almost linearly with core count in this workload, with minimal overhead from thread management or memory contention. That linear scaling is a hallmark of the Zen 2 architecture, which uses a chiplet design with a shared 128 MB L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory support providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth.

For real-world applications, this means the EPYC 7502 is optimized for tasks that can utilize all 64 threads simultaneously. Single-thread performance is present but not exceptional; the 6,203-point R23 single-core score is typical of a processor with a 2.50 GHz base clock and 3.35 GHz boost clock. Software that relies on a few fast cores, such as legacy database queries or certain game engines, will not see the same benefit as software that spawns many threads. Conversely, workloads like video encoding, 3D rendering, or scientific computing that can parallelize across cores will see near-peak utilization. The 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with the large shared L3 cache, mean that data-heavy multi-threaded tasks can keep working sets resident on-chip, reducing the need to hit system memory. The eight-channel memory bus further reinforces this, as it provides ample bandwidth to feed all cores concurrently. The data suggests that the EPYC 7502 is a specialist: it trades peak single-thread speed for predictable, high-throughput multi-thread execution.

Power and Thermals

The EPYC 7502 carries a TDP rating of 180 watts, which classifies it as a high-power server part. This TDP level requires a cooling solution designed for server chassis, typically a high-performance air cooler or a liquid cooling loop capable of dissipating sustained heat output. The 7 nm process node helps contain power density, but 32 cores operating at 2.50 GHz base and boosting to 3.35 GHz will still generate significant thermal load under full multi-thread load. The architecture’s chiplet design, with a die size of 74 mm² and 3,800 million transistors, spreads heat across multiple chiplets rather than concentrating it in a single die, which can aid in thermal management compared to a monolithic design.

In a server environment, the 180 W TDP implies that power delivery and cooling must be planned from the outset. Systems built around the AMD Socket SP3 platform are typically designed to handle this class of processor, with robust VRM designs and airflow paths. For a workstation or server chassis, a capable air cooler with a large heatsink and multiple heat pipes is likely sufficient for sustained operation, though ambient temperature and chassis airflow will be factors. The absence of a boost clock above 3.35 GHz suggests that the processor does not rely on aggressive power limiting to maintain high frequencies; instead, it operates in a steady state that matches its TDP budget. Users comparing this to lower-TDP parts should note that the 180 W rating is a baseline for power supply sizing and cooling selection, not a peak figure. The data indicates a processor that is built for continuous, high-intensity workloads rather than bursty performance.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score of the AMD EPYC 7502?

A: The average benchmark score is 12,709, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs tested.

Q: How does the EPYC 7502 compare to the Intel Xeon Gold 6348?

A: The EPYC 7502 has an average score of 12,709 versus 12,746 for the Xeon Gold 6348, resulting in a 0.3% deficit.

Q: What are the multi-threaded Cinebench R23 results?

A: The EPYC 7502 scores 43,940 in Cinebench R23 multi-core.

Q: What is the single-core performance in Cinebench R20?

A: The single-core score in Cinebench R20 is 2,605.

Q: What memory configuration does the EPYC 7502 support?

A: It supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP of the EPYC 7502?

A: The TDP is rated at 180 watts.

How It Compares

Intel Core i7-1185G7: The EPYC 7502 and this mobile-class processor both average 12,715 and 12,709, respectively, a 0% delta. This is a striking comparison, as the Core i7-1185G7 is a low-power mobile part, while the EPYC 7502 is a server CPU. The data shows that in the aggregate benchmark mix, they perform identically, but the EPYC 7502 achieves this through many cores, whereas the Core i7 relies on higher single-thread speeds. Workloads that are single-threaded will favor the Core i7, while multi-threaded tasks will heavily favor the EPYC 7502.

Intel Core i3-12100: The EPYC 7502 is 0.2% ahead of the Core i3-12100 in average score (12,709 vs 12,682). The Core i3-12100 is a quad-core desktop part, so its near-parity in average score is entirely due to superior single-thread performance. The EPYC 7502’s 32 cores provide a massive multi-thread advantage, but the average score masks that gap. For threaded workloads, the EPYC 7502 is far ahead; for lightly threaded tasks, the Core i3 wins.

Intel Xeon Gold 6348: The EPYC 7502 trails the Xeon Gold 6348 by 0.3% in average score (12,709 vs 12,746). Both are server processors, and the Xeon’s slight edge suggests it has a better balance of single-thread and multi-thread performance in the benchmark suite. The EPYC 7502 does not clearly beat this rival in aggregate, though the specific Cinebench multi-core scores are not directly compared here.

Intel Core i3-10105F: The EPYC 7502 leads this part by 0.6% (12,709 vs 12,631). Like the other Core i3, the i3-10105F is a low-core-count desktop chip that scores well on single-thread tests but poorly on multi-thread tests. The EPYC 7502’s advantage in the average is slim, but its multi-thread scores are several times higher, making it the clear choice for parallel workloads.

Who Should Consider It

The EPYC 7502 is for users whose workloads are dominated by multi-threaded execution. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 43,940, combined with a single-core score of 6,203, indicates that the processor delivers over seven times more throughput when all 64 threads are active. This makes it a strong candidate for 3D rendering, video post-production, scientific simulations, and large-scale data analysis, tasks that can split work across many cores. The 128 MB shared L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory support (204.8 GB/s bandwidth) further benefit workloads that access large datasets, as they reduce memory stalls and keep data closer to the cores.

For gaming, the EPYC 7502 is less suitable. The single-thread score of 6,203 in Cinebench R23 is adequate but not exceptional, and most games rely on fewer threads with higher clock speeds. The 3.35 GHz boost clock is modest by modern standards, so gaming performance would be limited compared to processors with higher single-thread scores. Office and productivity applications that are lightly threaded will also see only average performance; the processor’s strength lies in parallel throughput, not responsiveness in single-threaded tasks. Server and workstation users running virtual machines, database servers, or compilation farms will find the 32 cores and 64 threads well-suited to their needs. The 180 W TDP implies a server or workstation chassis with adequate cooling, not a compact desktop. In summary, if the workload scales with core count, the EPYC 7502 is a compelling choice; if it does not, other processors in the rival list would serve better.