CPU Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unusual pairing: two Naples-generation EPYC parts that are far closer in real-world benchmark output than their core counts suggest. The AMD EPYC 7301 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by margins that are almost negligible, the largest single-core gap is 0.6%, and the multicore deltas hover at 0.4%. With an average benchmark score of 3685 against 3671, the 7301 leads by just 0.4% overall. The 7251 trails by the same 0.4% in the reverse direction, making this a statistical tie in everyday terms.

For users choosing between these two, the decision should hinge on factors other than raw rendering performance. The 7301 offers double the cores (16 vs 8) and double the L3 cache (64 MB vs 32 MB), yet it consumes 170 W versus 120 W. The 7251, despite having half the cores, nearly matches the 7301 in every benchmark because it boosts higher (2.90 GHz vs 2.70 GHz) and likely scales better within the Cinebench workload's threading limits. If the workload is heavily parallel and can saturate 32 threads, the 7301's extra cores provide a theoretical advantage, but the measured data shows that advantage is not materializing in these tests. Conversely, the 7251's lower TDP makes it the more power-conscious choice for density-oriented server deployments where thermal headroom is scarce.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational design: Zen architecture, Naples codename, 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, and a 213 mm² die size with 4,800 million transistors. They are built on identical silicon, which explains why their performance profiles are so similar. The key divergence lies in how AMD configured that silicon. The 7301 activates 16 cores and 32 threads, while the 7251 enables only 8 cores and 16 threads, a deliberate segmentation that typically would create a large performance gap, but here does not.

Cache allocation differs substantially. The 7301 carries 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the 7251 is limited to 32 MB. Both have 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, so per-core cache resources are identical; the difference is purely in the total shared pool. Memory bandwidth also diverges: the 7301 delivers 170.6 GB/s versus the 7251's 153.6 GB/s, both over eight-channel DDR4. This bandwidth gap is modest (about 11%) and likely reflects the 7301's higher memory clock support or more active memory channels. Both support ECC memory and use AMD Socket SP3 with PCIe Gen 3.

Clock speeds tell an interesting story. The 7301 runs a 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost; the 7251 runs a 2.10 GHz base but boosts to 2.90 GHz. The 7251's 200 MHz boost advantage likely compensates for its fewer cores in single-threaded and lightly-threaded scenarios, which is why the single-core scores are nearly identical (181 vs 180 in Cinebench R15). Both chips have unlocked multipliers, so overclocking is possible, though server platforms rarely exploit this.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the head-to-head data, the 7301 wins every single benchmark category. That includes both multicore and single-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The margins are consistent and small: 0.4% in R15 multicore, 0.6% in R15 single-core, 0.4% in R20 multicore, 0.4% in R20 single-core, 0.4% in R23 multicore, and 0.3% in R23 single-core. If the goal is to maximize absolute Cinebench scores, the 7301 is the clear, if barely, winner.

However, the 7251 wins in the efficiency domain, though the FACT PACK does not provide direct performance-per-watt metrics. The 7251's TDP of 120 W against the 7301's 170 W means it achieves 95-99% of the performance at roughly 70% of the power envelope. For rack-density scenarios where power and cooling are constrained, the 7251's profile is more attractive. The 7251 also holds a boost clock advantage (2.90 GHz vs 2.70 GHz), which could translate to better responsiveness in latency-sensitive, low-thread-count server tasks that do not appear in these Cinebench results.

The 7301's wins are real but narrow. In workloads that cannot effectively utilize 32 threads, the 7301's advantage shrinks to almost nothing, the single-core deltas are 0.3-0.6%. In workloads that can scale to 32 threads, the 7301 still only leads by 0.4%, which suggests either the Cinebench multicore test saturates at 16 threads or the 7251's higher boost compensates for its core deficit. The data implies that for most real-world server applications, these two processors are interchangeable in performance terms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7251 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 7301 in multicore benchmarks?

A: The 7301 leads by 0.4% in Cinebench R15 multicore (1284 vs 1279), 0.4% in R20 multicore (5351 vs 5331), and 0.4% in R23 multicore (12742 vs 12694).

Q: Does the EPYC 7251 ever win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the EPYC 7301 wins all 6 benchmarks, and the EPYC 7251 wins 0.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two chips?

A: The EPYC 7301 has a TDP of 170 W, while the EPYC 7251 has a TDP of 120 W.

Q: Do they use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with the same 213 mm² die size and 4,800 million transistors.

Q: How does the L3 cache differ?

A: The EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7251 has 32 MB.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is how consistently close these processors are. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 7301 scores 1284 against the 7251's 1279, a 0.4% lead that is well within run-to-run variance. The single-core R15 test shows the same story: 181 vs 180, a 0.6% edge for the 7301. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap remains at 0.4% (5351 vs 5331), and the single-core gap also stays at 0.4% (755 vs 752). In Cinebench R23, the 7301's multicore score of 12742 beats the 7251's 12694 by 0.4%, while single-core is 1798 vs 1792, a 0.3% difference.

The consistency of these deltas is remarkable. Every single benchmark, regardless of workload intensity or threading model, produces a delta between 0.3% and 0.6%. This suggests that the 7301's extra cores and cache are not translating into meaningful performance gains in these render tests. The 7251's higher boost clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.70 GHz) appears to almost perfectly offset its core deficit. For a 16-core part to lead an 8-core part by less than 1% across six different benchmarks, the 7251 must be achieving near-perfect core utilization at higher frequencies, or the Cinebench workloads are not scaling beyond 8-16 threads effectively.

From a benchmark database perspective, these two CPUs are effectively equivalent in Cinebench performance. The average benchmark scores (3685 vs 3671) differ by only 14 points, and both sit at the 56th percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals for the 7301 include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700X (0.3% ahead) and the Intel Core i3-13100E (0.5% behind), while the 7251's rivals include the same Ryzen (0.1% behind) and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 (0.4% ahead). Both chips occupy the same performance tier, surrounded by a cluster of desktop and server parts within a 1% band.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals where AMD drew the line between these two Naples SKUs. Core count is the most obvious divider: 16 cores and 32 threads on the 7301 versus 8 cores and 16 threads on the 7251. This doubles the 7301's thread capacity, yet the benchmark data shows this does not double performance. Clock speeds diverge in the opposite direction, the 7301 has a higher base clock (2.20 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) but a lower boost clock (2.70 GHz vs 2.90 GHz). The 7251's faster boost is likely the primary reason it keeps pace in single-threaded tests.

Cache is another differentiator: 64 MB of shared L3 on the 7301 versus 32 MB on the 7251. Both chips maintain identical per-core L1 (96 KB) and L2 (512 KB) caches, so the difference is purely in the total L3 pool. Memory bandwidth follows the core count pattern: 170.6 GB/s for the 7301 versus 153.6 GB/s for the 7251, both over eight-channel DDR4 with ECC support. TDP rounds out the picture: 170 W for the 7301, 120 W for the 7251, a 50 W gap that makes the 7251 significantly more power-efficient per unit of measured performance.

Everything else matches exactly. Both use AMD Socket SP3, PCIe Gen 3, the Zen architecture with Naples codename, 14 nm process, 213 mm² die size, 4,800 million transistors, and were released on the same date (2017-06-28). Both are active in production, have unlocked multipliers, and target the Server/Workstation market segment. The part numbers differ (PS7301BEVGPAF for the 7301, PS7251BFV8SAFPS7251BFAFWOF for the 7251), but the underlying silicon is identical, only the enabled features and clock/power profiles separate them. The data suggests AMD's binning process created two chips that perform nearly identically in Cinebench, despite a 2x core count difference, making the 7251 a compelling choice for power-constrained deployments and the 7301 a marginal winner for absolute performance.