Back in September, AMD announced its 64-core EPYC 7H12 processor - a 280 W TDP behemoth with an increased base frequency designed specifically for the high-performance computing market. Based on AMD’s Product Master list inadvertently published by the company earlier this week, the company may release more EPYC CPUs with an extended TDP.

As it turns out, the EPYC 7H12 will not be the only Rome CPU with a 280 W TDP. AMD’s Product Master document lists the EPYC 7R22 and the EPYC 7R32 with a 280 W TDP, as well as the EPYC 7V12 with a 240 W TDP. We have no idea whether these CPUs are to be released for the wider market, are for OEMs only, or if they are in the plans, or which market segments they will address. Meanwhile, a high TDP might indicate that AMD intends to release more processors for HPC in general or maybe even a specific HPC customer, or they might have a specific feature not available on other processors.

From AMD's Master Product Document

The document also mentions various EPYC CPUs with TDP levels of 180 W or 225 W, but nothing else is known about these processors.

AMD’s 64-core EPYC 7H12 with a 256 MB L3 cache features a 2.60 GHz base frequency, a 3.30 GHz turbo frequency, as well as a 280 W TDP. Compared to the EPYC 7742, the 7H12 has a 350 MHz higher base clock, a 100 MHz lower turbo clock, but a 55 W higher TDP. While the CPU is socket compatible with other Rome processors and support the same features, it is expected to be used primarily in large HPC datacenters that need a maximum sustained performance and that do not care about power consumption.

AMD EPYC 7002 Processors (2P)
Frequency (GHz) L3* TDP Price
Base Max
EPYC 7H12 64 / 128 2.60 3.30 256 MB 280 W ?
EPYC 7742 64 / 128 2.25 3.40 256 MB 225 W $6950
EPYC 7702 64 / 128 2.00 3.35 256 MB 200 W $6450
EPYC 7642 48 / 96 2.30 3.20 256 MB 225 W $4775
EPYC 7552 48 / 96 2.20 3.30 192 MB 200 W $4025

There is one important thing to note about AMD’s Product Master list, which is an internal document that contains OPN codes along with US ECCN, HTS, and CCATS codes that are required by the US export regulators. The paper lists hundreds of products, yet some of them are potential products that may or may not be released, whereas other are off-roadmap client-specific SKUs not supposed to be generally available. 

Related Reading

Sources: AMD, Reddit, Komachi_Ensaka/Twitter,

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • 29a - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    AMD will win that one too.
  • AshlayW - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    All-core boost on these parts must be close to their maximum turbo speeds. 64 Zen2 cores churning along at 3.2-3.3 GHz~ that is truly scary (for Intel). These parts are likely what the Archer SC will use
  • extide - Monday, October 21, 2019 - link

    Servethehome was seeing 3.2Ghz actual all-core boost in integer loads on the 225W parts so I would imagine that you'd see the full 3.3 in integer and pretty close to that in FP & AVX loads. So, yeah, it's going to be a slaughtering, especially when you factor in price...
  • abufrejoval - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    That seems hard to believe: An integer workload basically means single cycle instructions, leaving the pipeline empty and most of the register file idle. Actually I can think of few integer-only workloads that have enough locality to not just strain the RAM channels with e.g. in-memory databases. Even at top clocks, the chip might not pull more than half its TDP, lots of it in cache operations.

    AVX and FP workloads on the other hand would fill the pipeline and the register file to the hilt and keep a maximum number of ALUs churning through the various stages in the pipelines: That's where you'd get base clock speeds, because pretty much every transistor on the chip lights up and turns electricity into heat. If that stuff would run at turbo speed any length of time, turbo would become the new base.
  • ERJ - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    2.6 is the base speed, 3.3 is boost. You two are saying the same thing.
  • Gondalf - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    Depends....that 3.3Ghz turbo is really crap, not suited for a large numbers of server applications.
    AMD choses the very low power process from TSMC and now Epyc is in a niche leaving a lot of server market to Intel.
    On a standard 7nm 64 cores are not even thinkable today, in fact desktop parts turbo much higher with a strong single thread performance. Anyway.....better a single digit market share than nothing.
  • zmatt - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    Not sure what loads you are talking about but to me it sounds amazing. Most servers are VMs and have been for a long time. 64 cores/ 128 threads in one chip sounds amazing for a VM host. That degree of scale up, plus the extra PCIe lanes is just something Intel can't match. Before Epyc you had to cluster boxes to get those numbers and live with the incurred penalty. Now you don't.
  • Korguz - Thursday, October 24, 2019 - link

    Gandolf. " Epyc is in a niche leaving a lot of server market to Intel. " how so ?? more like intel will loose alot of the server market to amd.
    " On a standard 7nm 64 cores are not even thinkable today " source for this, or you just speculating, and this is just your own thoughts??
    " in fact desktop parts turbo much higher with a strong single thread performance " and this is for server, NOT desktop, point is ?
    come gondalf, grasping at straws trying to make intel look better when with epyc, beats intel practically on every fronts ?
  • twtech - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    I would like to see AMD partner up with an OEM on workstation builds using their CPUs.

    If they can't get the likes of Dell and HP onboard, pick a startup to partner with or build their own workstation reference design that system builders can implement.

    Professional users don't want to mess around with DIY - AMD, don't force them to.
  • kgardas - Tuesday, October 22, 2019 - link

    There are several makers of epyc based workstation in the market already. Just google for "amd epyc workstation" and you will see...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now