EPYC 7532 vs Ryzen 7 2700X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 7 2700X
2018
8 cores / 16 threads, 105 Watt
11.45
EPYC 7532
2020
32 cores / 64 threads, 200 Watt
34.47
+201%

EPYC 7532 outperforms Ryzen 7 2700X by a whopping 201% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking695116
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.66no data
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 7AMD EPYC
Power efficiency9.9415.72
Architecture codenameZen+ (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date13 April 2018 (6 years ago)19 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532 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)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads1664
Base clock speed3.7 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4.3 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3724
L1 cache768 KB2 MB
L2 cache4 MB16 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)256 MB
Chip lithography12 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size213 mm2no data
Number of transistors4800 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532 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)no data
SocketAM4Socket SP3
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsSSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHAno data
AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532 are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4-3200
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532.

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 7 2700X 11.45
EPYC 7532 34.47
+201%

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 2700X 17518
EPYC 7532 52755
+201%

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 2700X 1255
+3.9%
EPYC 7532 1208

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 2700X 6132
EPYC 7532 10136
+65.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.45 34.47
Recency 13 April 2018 19 February 2020
Physical cores 8 32
Threads 16 64
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 200 Watt

Ryzen 7 2700X has 90.5% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7532, on the other hand, has a 201% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7532 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 2700X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7532 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 2700X and EPYC 7532, 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 2700X
Ryzen 7 2700X
AMD EPYC 7532
EPYC 7532

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.


4.4 2882 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 2700X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 19 votes

Rate EPYC 7532 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 7 2700X or EPYC 7532, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.