AMD EPYC 7502 vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

Processor comparisons 17-03-2021

   If you can't decide which processor to buy, you can make a choice by looking at the AMD EPYC 7502 vs AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 tests and decide which is better for games or simple use for machine learning, rendering, video editing, programming, streaming. Here you can find useful information from many benchmarks or real video editing and streaming tests. A thorough analysis of all the technical characteristics, so that it can be easier to understand, is summarized in the table.
   From the comparison video, you can get the results of joint testing in software tests like Furmark, GeekBench 6, 5.2, Prime95, WPrime, Gears 5, DaVinci Resolve Studio, SuperPi, PCMark 10, 7zip, Blender, Dolphin Emulator, 3DMark, VeraCrypt, Blender, PassMark, UserBenchmark, MATLAB, World of Tanks enCore Benchmark, Handbrake, RealBench, Cinebench 23 (20, 15), AIDA64.
   Gaming performance of CPUs in:

Cyberpunk 2077
Fortnite
DOOM: Eternal
Call of Duty: Warzone and Modern Warfare
World of Warcraft: Shadowlands
Apex Legends
Overwatch
Rainbow Six Siege
Assassin's Creed Valhalla
Borderlands 3
Valorant
Death Stranding
Fallout 76
Valheim
Halo Infinite
Grand Theft Auto V
Watch Dogs Legion
Red Dead Redemption 2
Last Man Standing

After reading the results these benchmarks and videos, you can already make an briefed decision about which CPU is better to buy for gaming AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 or AMD EPYC 7502.

Summary benchmark results

As a percentage of the maximum value based on a sample from the entire base of all processors
Processor Benchmark

EPYC 7502

66%

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

59%

This shows the performance of the processors in single-threaded and multi-threaded mode. In this comparison, EPYC 7502 is 10% better than Ryzen 9 PRO 3900. The data source is several popular tests. Detailed information can be found below.

Gaming performance
Summary result of all game benchmarks.

EPYC 7502

73%

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

56%

The maximum result in this parameter is 100 percent, which is the performance of the most powerful processor at the moment. And it is clear that this is a server processor, on which no one will play games. Because this processor costs several tens of thousands of dollars. Therefore, if you think that the selected CPU has a small game result, look at the FPS that it produces in real games in the final table below.
List of other games in which processors were compared: PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), Battlefield V, Half-Life: Alyx, Horizon Zero Dawn, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS GO), Monster Hunter World, Resident Evil 7 Biohazard, Ghostrunner, DOTA 2A, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman 3, League of Legends (LOL), Forza Horizon 4, Control, NBA 2K20, Microsoft Flight Simulator, Metro Exodus, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

Gaming benchmark

Fortnite	129.9	99.7
Valorant	147.7	113.3
Cyberpunk 2077	82.7	63.5
Apex Legends	138.8	106.5
Call of Duty Warzone	110.7	85.0
Overwatch	119.6	91.8
Red Dead Redemption 2	101.9	78.2
DOOM Eternal	73.8	56.7
Warzone	115.2	88.4
Assassin's Creed	124.0	95.2
Valheim	122.6	94.1

The numbers in this table indicate the maximum FPS that was received on the device with the corresponding processor. Depending on the configuration of the computer (RAM size and Video Card) and graphics quality settings (Ultra, Medium, Normal), the results may differ quite significantly. We recommend that you better study the results of the Cinebench, GeekBench and Passmark becnmarks.
The computers that were in the comparisons not only did they have different amounts of RAM and different video cards. But users also tested them at different screen resolutions: 2K, 4K or FullHD. Therefore, the game benchmark data is approximate. But all video cards met the average system requirements of games. To be sure exactly how much performance the processor will be in games, if you compare it in one assembly with the video card that is installed in your computer.

Power consumption

EPYC 7502

17%

Ryzen 9 PRO 3900

64%

To make a finishing choice on which processor is better, you should also consider the generation of its core. The newer the processor generation, the better its performance in games and benchmarks, as well as its energy efficiency. In this case the Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is more energy efficient than the EPYC 7502 as it consumes less power: 180W vs. 65W. Power consumption is especially important for laptops. Also, when choosing a processor cooling system, you must know its TDP. It is necessary to calculate so that the TDP data specified in the cooler specification is greater than the TDP of the compared processor.

Software benchmarks

For example you plan to use the processor not only for gaming, but also for streaming, programming, video editing or video rendering, machine learning, then the main parameter for you is its performance in multi-threaded mode. In this mode, the CPU turns on all cores and threads that it has to the maximum to reach maximum performance. You will find out this data from the benchmark tables below. Before using the data from these tests, be sure to check whether the software you are going to use on your computer supports multi-threaded mode. Because there are still many programs that use only one core to run, and all the benefit of multi-core mode are unused.

Cinebench 23, 20 an 15
The results of this benchmark show Single-threaded and Multi-threaded CPU performance

	AMD EPYC 7502	AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Cinbench 15 Single-core	160	202
Cinbench 15 Multi-core	6608	3007
Cinbench 20 Single-core	391	499
Cinbench 20 Multi-core	14007	6987
Cinbench 23 Single-core	740	1182
Cinbench 23 Multi-core	36424	17436

Passmark
This popular benchmark displays Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	AMD EPYC 7502	AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Single-Core	2094	2663
Multi-Core	53430	31704

GeekBench 6, 5.2
This benchmark shows Multi-threaded and Single-threaded processor performance

	AMD EPYC 7502	AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Single-Core	939	1252
Multi-Core	41117	11494

Comparison of specifications

In the specification comparison table, the most useful will be the the possibility of overclocking it and release date of the processor. The later the processor is released, the longer it will last in your computer. And the easier it will be to upgrade the system in the future. The same can be said about overclocking. If the processor can be overclocked, thereby increasing its performance, then it will still be able to produce maximum FPS in new games. Accordingly, you do not need to buy a new CPU to enjoy the games any longer. The savings are obvious!

	AMD EPYC 7502	AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900
Announcement date	October 01, 2020	September 30, 2019
Type	Server	Desktop
Socket	SP3	AM4
Core name	Rome	Matisse
Architecture	Zen 2	Zen 2
Generation	2	2
Turbo Frequency	3.4 MHz	4.3 MHz
Frequency	2.5 MHz	3.1 MHz
Cores	32	12
Threads	64	24
Bus rate
Bit	64	64
Lithography	7 nm	7 nm
Transistors count	64000 millions	7800 millions
Power consumption (TDP)	180 W	65 W
Memory type	DDR4	DDR4
Max. Memory
Memory Frequency		3200
Memory bandwidth
L1 cache		768KB
L2 cache		6MB
L3 cache	128MB	64MB
Overclocking	Yes	No
Supports ECC	No	No
Part number	100-000000054 100-100000054WOF	100-000000072

In this comparison block, you should pay attention to the differences in clock speed and the number of cores. Here Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is 19% better than EPYC 7502 in terms of CPU frequency. Another difference is that EPYC 7502 has 20 more core than Ryzen 9 PRO 3900. Also keep in mind that high CPU frequency affects battery life through power consumption (relevant for laptops).

Result:
The number of parameters for which AMD EPYC 7502 is better: 21
The number of parameters for which AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 is better: 12
However, it should be realized that the summary data in the table above do not mean that taking them into account you should fully trust a simple comparison of these numbers. Better to watch the video tests and read the reviews of of people who bought AMD EPYC 7502 and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 before making a choice which of the CPUs to buy for gaming.

• AMD EPYC 7502 specs and review.

• AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 3900 specs and review.