EPYC 7502 vs A10-7870K

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

A10-7870K
2015
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
2.22
EPYC 7502
2019
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
30.78
+1286%

EPYC 7502 outperforms A10-7870K by a whopping 1286% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1836138
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.387.44
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Power efficiency2.1715.88
Architecture codenameGodaveri (2014−2016)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date28 May 2015 (9 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$120$2,600

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7502 has 1858% better value for money than A10-7870K.

Detailed specifications

A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads464
Base clock speed3.9 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.1 GHz3.35 GHz
Multiplierno data25
L1 cache256 KB2 MB
L2 cache4096 KB16 MB
L3 cache0 KB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography28 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size246 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature72 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)74 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,178 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration12 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFM2+TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A10-7870K and EPYC 7502. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
FMAFMA4-
AVXAVX+
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
PowerNow+-
PowerGating+-
Out-of-band client management+-
VirusProtect+-
HSA+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++
IOMMU 2.0+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A10-7870K and EPYC 7502. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-2133DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidthno data204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardAMD Radeon R7 Graphicsno data
iGPU core count8no data
Number of pipelines512no data
Enduro+-
Switchable graphics+-
UVD+-
VCE+-

Graphics interfaces

Available interfaces and connections of A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 integrated GPUs.

DisplayPort+-
HDMI+-

Graphics API support

APIs supported by A10-7870K and EPYC 7502 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.

DirectXDirectX® 12no data
Vulkan+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by A10-7870K and EPYC 7502.

PCIe version3.0no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

A10-7870K 2.22
EPYC 7502 30.78
+1286%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

A10-7870K 3465
EPYC 7502 47983
+1285%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.22 30.78
Recency 28 May 2015 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 32
Threads 4 64
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 180 Watt

A10-7870K has 89.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7502, on the other hand, has a 1286.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7502 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-7870K in performance tests.

Note that A10-7870K is a desktop processor while EPYC 7502 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between A10-7870K and EPYC 7502, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD A10-7870K
A10-7870K
AMD EPYC 7502
EPYC 7502

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 70 votes

Rate A10-7870K on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 10 votes

Rate EPYC 7502 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about A10-7870K or EPYC 7502, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.