
EPYC 7662
Popular choices:

EPYC 7702
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
EPYC 7662
2020Why buy it
- ✅+4.7% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($6,150 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.8 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($6,150 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
EPYC 7702
2019Why buy it
- ✅Draws 200W instead of 225W, a 25W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (69,060 vs 72,298).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($6,450 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
EPYC 7662
2020EPYC 7702
2019Why buy it
- ✅+4.7% higher PassMark.
- ✅Costs $300 less on MSRP ($6,150 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 9.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 11.8 vs 10.7 PassMark/$ ($6,150 MSRP vs $6,450 MSRP).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 200W instead of 225W, a 25W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (69,060 vs 72,298).
- ❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 10.7 vs 11.8 PassMark/$ ($6,450 MSRP vs $6,150 MSRP).
Quick Answers
So, is EPYC 7662 better than EPYC 7702?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 192 FPS | 192 FPS |
| medium | 156 FPS | 172 FPS |
| high | 125 FPS | 138 FPS |
| ultra | 97 FPS | 110 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 156 FPS | 157 FPS |
| medium | 122 FPS | 132 FPS |
| high | 94 FPS | 101 FPS |
| ultra | 75 FPS | 82 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 73 FPS | 72 FPS |
| medium | 60 FPS | 65 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 50 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 40 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 249 FPS | 247 FPS |
| medium | 220 FPS | 221 FPS |
| high | 182 FPS | 183 FPS |
| ultra | 145 FPS | 148 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 204 FPS | 202 FPS |
| medium | 185 FPS | 186 FPS |
| high | 158 FPS | 158 FPS |
| ultra | 122 FPS | 124 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 127 FPS | 126 FPS |
| medium | 117 FPS | 118 FPS |
| high | 102 FPS | 103 FPS |
| ultra | 83 FPS | 84 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 722 FPS | 629 FPS |
| medium | 590 FPS | 536 FPS |
| high | 513 FPS | 486 FPS |
| ultra | 446 FPS | 415 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 587 FPS | 524 FPS |
| medium | 486 FPS | 446 FPS |
| high | 423 FPS | 394 FPS |
| ultra | 368 FPS | 338 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 426 FPS | 389 FPS |
| medium | 330 FPS | 312 FPS |
| high | 281 FPS | 274 FPS |
| ultra | 227 FPS | 224 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 935 FPS | 904 FPS |
| medium | 846 FPS | 823 FPS |
| high | 724 FPS | 706 FPS |
| ultra | 624 FPS | 610 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 721 FPS | 711 FPS |
| medium | 628 FPS | 620 FPS |
| high | 535 FPS | 530 FPS |
| ultra | 460 FPS | 450 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 514 FPS | 503 FPS |
| medium | 458 FPS | 452 FPS |
| high | 400 FPS | 398 FPS |
| ultra | 348 FPS | 343 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7662 and EPYC 7702

EPYC 7662
EPYC 7662
The EPYC 7662 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 2020-02-19. It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.3 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB. L2 cache: 32 MB. Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 225 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 72,298 points. Launch price was $6,700.

EPYC 7702
EPYC 7702
The EPYC 7702 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 7 August 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture. It features 64 cores and 128 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 3.35 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 7 nm, 14 nm process technology. Socket: TR4. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Eight-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 69,060 points. Launch price was $6,450.
Processing Power
Both the EPYC 7662 and EPYC 7702 share an identical 64-core/128-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.3 GHz on the EPYC 7662 versus 3.35 GHz on the EPYC 7702 — a 1.5% clock advantage for the EPYC 7702 (base: 2 GHz vs 2 GHz). Both are built on the Zen 2 (2017−2020) architecture using a 7 nm, 14 nm process. In PassMark, the EPYC 7662 scores 72,298 against the EPYC 7702's 69,060 — a 4.6% lead for the EPYC 7662. L3 cache: 256 MB on the EPYC 7662 vs 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 7702.
| Feature | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 64 / 128 | 64 / 128 |
| Boost Clock | 3.3 GHz | 3.35 GHz+2% |
| Base Clock | 2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 256 MB | 256 MB (total) |
| L2 Cache | 32 MB+6300% | 512K (per core) |
| Process | 7 nm, 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Architecture | Zen 2 (2017−2020) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 72,298+5% | 69,060 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 7662 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 7702 uses TR4 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to 3200 memory speed. Both support up to 4096 of RAM. Both feature 8-channel memory with ECC support. Both provide 128 PCIe lanes. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 7662) and SP3 (EPYC 7702).
| Feature | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | TR4 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | 3200 | 3200 |
| Max RAM Capacity | 4096 | 4096 |
| RAM Channels | 8 | 8 |
| ECC Support | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | 128 | 128 |
Advanced Features
Neither processor supports overclocking. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 7662 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280; EPYC 7702 rivals Xeon Platinum 8280.
| Feature | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | No | No |
| IGPU Model | None | None |
| Unlocked | No | No |
| AVX-512 | No | No |
| Virtualization | VT-x, VT-d | VT-x, VT-d |
Value Analysis
The EPYC 7662 launched at $6150 MSRP, while the EPYC 7702 debuted at $6450. On MSRP ($6150 vs $6450), the EPYC 7662 is $300 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 7662 delivers 11.8 pts/$ vs 10.7 pts/$ for the EPYC 7702 — making the EPYC 7662 the 9.3% better value option.
| Feature | EPYC 7662 | EPYC 7702 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $6150-5% | $6450 |
| Performance per Dollar | 11.8+10% | 10.7 |
| Release Date | 2020 | 2019 |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.













