EPYC 7371 vs EPYC 8224P
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 8224P outperforms EPYC 7371 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 161 | 291 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 29.46 | 5.65 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 16.82 | 10.79 |
| Architecture codename | Siena (2023−2024) | Naples (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 18 September 2023 (1 year ago) | 16 November 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $855 | $1,550 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 8224P has 421% better value for money than EPYC 7371.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371 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 | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.55 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 2x 73 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 75 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 17,750 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371 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 | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | SP6 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 170 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 170.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371.
| PCIe version | 5.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 96 | 128 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.43 | 19.38 |
| Recency | 18 September 2023 | 16 November 2018 |
| Physical cores | 24 | 16 |
| Threads | 48 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 5 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 160 Watt | 170 Watt |
EPYC 8224P has a 46.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, a 180% more advanced lithography process, and 6.3% lower power consumption.
The EPYC 8224P is our recommended choice as it beats the EPYC 7371 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 8224P and EPYC 7371, 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.
