FX-7500 vs EPYC 7501
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7501 outperforms FX-7500 by a whopping 677% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 429 | 1912 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.14 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | AMD EPYC | AMD Kaveri |
| Power efficiency | 8.73 | 10.06 |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Kaveri (2014−2015) |
| Release date | 29 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 June 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $3,400 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 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 cores | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Multiplier | 20 | no data |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 245 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 2,410 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 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 configuration | 2 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | FP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 19 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7501 and FX-7500. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | 86x SSE (1, 2, 3, 3S, 4.1, 4.2, 4A),-64, AES, AVX, FMA |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| FRTC | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| Out-of-band client management | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| HSA | - | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7501 and FX-7500. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR3-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 6 |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by EPYC 7501 and FX-7500 integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7501 and FX-7500.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | 8 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.69 | 2.02 |
| Recency | 29 June 2017 | 4 June 2014 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 4 |
| Threads | 64 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 170 Watt | 19 Watt |
EPYC 7501 has a 676.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 700% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
FX-7500, on the other hand, has 794.7% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 7501 is our recommended choice as it beats the FX-7500 in performance tests.
Be aware that EPYC 7501 is a server/workstation processor while FX-7500 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7501 and FX-7500, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
