EPYC 7F52 vs Ryzen 7 1700

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 1700
2017
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
9.32
EPYC 7F52
2020
16 cores / 32 threads, 240 Watt
26.01
+179%

EPYC 7F52 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by a whopping 179% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking822192
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.945.70
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7AMD EPYC
Power efficiency13.5715.88
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date22 February 2017 (7 years ago)14 April 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329$3,100

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7F52 has 45% better value for money than Ryzen 7 1700.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1632
Base clock speed3 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3035
L1 cache768 KB1 MB
L2 cache4096 KB8 MB
L3 cache16384 KB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size213 mm274 mm2
Number of transistors4800 Million3,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52 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)2
SocketAM4SP3
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt240 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI++
FMAFMA3-
AVX++
SenseMI+-
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52.

PCIe versionn/a4.0
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 7 1700 9.32
EPYC 7F52 26.01
+179%

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 7 1700 14808
EPYC 7F52 41322
+179%

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 7 1700 1025
EPYC 7F52 1426
+39.1%

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 7 1700 5202
EPYC 7F52 10736
+106%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.32 26.01
Recency 22 February 2017 14 April 2020
Physical cores 8 16
Threads 16 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 240 Watt

Ryzen 7 1700 has 269.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7F52, on the other hand, has a 179.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7F52 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 1700 in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F52 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 1700 and EPYC 7F52, 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 7 1700
Ryzen 7 1700
AMD EPYC 7F52
EPYC 7F52

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 1543 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 9 votes

Rate EPYC 7F52 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 1700 or EPYC 7F52, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.