EPYC 7302P vs Ryzen 5 2500X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 2500X
2018
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
5.96
EPYC 7302P
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
20.57
+245%

EPYC 7302P outperforms Ryzen 5 2500X by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1109273
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data13.42
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.6312.49
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date1 October 2018 (6 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$825

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads832
Base clock speed3.6 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3630
L1 cache96K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size192 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM4TR4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes20no 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.

Ryzen 5 2500X 5.96
EPYC 7302P 20.57
+245%

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.

Ryzen 5 2500X 9467
EPYC 7302P 32669
+245%

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.

Ryzen 5 2500X 1126
EPYC 7302P 1162
+3.2%

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.

Ryzen 5 2500X 3813
EPYC 7302P 7836
+106%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.96 20.57
Recency 1 October 2018 7 August 2019
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 8 32
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 155 Watt

Ryzen 5 2500X has 138.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has a 245.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 months, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7302P is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 2500X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 2500X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 2500X and EPYC 7302P, 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 Ryzen 5 2500X
Ryzen 5 2500X
AMD EPYC 7302P
EPYC 7302P

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.


4.3 162 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 2500X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 27 votes

Rate EPYC 7302P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 2500X or EPYC 7302P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.