AMD EPYC 7281 vs AMD EPYC 7351 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7351 across every Cinebench iteration in the database. The EPYC 7351 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the EPYC 7281 failing to claim a single victory in any benchmark test. The most consistent margin appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the EPYC 7351 scores 8291 against the EPYC 7281's 7718, a 7.4% advantage. That same 7.4% delta repeats across Cinebench R20 singlecore (1170 versus 1089), Cinebench R23 multicore (19742 versus 18377), and Cinebench R23 singlecore (2787 versus 2594).

The pattern is not limited to the newer benchmark versions. In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 7351 delivers 1989 points in multicore testing versus 1852 for the EPYC 7281, a 7.4% lead. The singlecore R15 result shows 280 points against 261, a 7.3% margin, the only head-to-head delta that dips below the 7.4% figure seen elsewhere. Every other comparison lands at exactly 7.4%, which suggests the performance gap is largely driven by a consistent clock advantage rather than workload-specific architectural behavior.

The average benchmark score reinforces this narrative. The EPYC 7351 records an average score of 5710 across all tested workloads, while the EPYC 7281 sits at 5315. That is a difference of 395 points, roughly 7.4% relative to the lower-scoring chip. The EPYC 7351 also holds a slightly better percentile position, ranking in the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database compared to the 60th percentile for the EPYC 7281. The percentile gap is small, but it aligns with the consistent benchmark deltas.

Looking at nearest rivals places both chips in similar competitive territory. The EPYC 7351's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7F32 with an average score of 5703, a delta of only 0.1% in favor of the EPYC 7351. The Intel Core i9-7920X trails by 0.7%, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X leads the EPYC 7351 by 0.4%. The Intel Xeon W-2175 is 1% ahead. For the EPYC 7281, the Intel Core i9-10900KF matches it almost exactly with a 0% delta, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is 0.2% behind and the Intel Core i9-9900X trails by 0.3%. The Intel Core i9-13900TE sits 0.5% ahead. These rival comparisons show that both EPYC parts occupy the same general performance tier, but the EPYC 7351 sits slightly higher within that tier.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7351 wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head data, so the use-case split depends on the magnitude of its advantage and the specific workload. In heavily threaded rendering tasks, the multicore results show the EPYC 7351 pulling ahead by 7.4% consistently. For Cinebench R23 multicore, the 19742 score versus 18377 translates into a meaningful reduction in render time for workloads that scale across all 16 cores and 32 threads. The singlecore results show a similar 7.4% or 7.3% edge, meaning even lightly threaded applications, those that depend on a single thread's performance, favor the EPYC 7351.

The EPYC 7281 does not have a single benchmark where it outperforms the EPYC 7351. Its case rests on the fact that both chips share the same core count, thread count, socket, and memory configuration, so any workload that runs on the EPYC 7351 will run on the EPYC 7281 with the same parallel capabilities. The difference is purely speed. For workloads that are bound by memory bandwidth, both chips report identical eight-channel DDR4 support and 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, so the EPYC 7281 does not lose ground there. The EPYC 7281 also matches the EPYC 7351 in PCIe Gen 3 support, ECC memory support, and the same 170 W TDP, so platform-level requirements are identical.

The practical implication is that the EPYC 7281 remains viable for throughput-oriented workloads where the 7.4% performance deficit is acceptable, particularly if the workload is not latency-sensitive. However, the benchmark data does not identify any workload category where the EPYC 7281 leads. The EPYC 7351 is the stronger choice for both single-threaded responsiveness and multi-threaded batch processing. The consistency of the 7.4% delta across every Cinebench version, from R15 through R23, indicates that the advantage holds across different generations of the Cinebench workload and is not an artifact of a single test methodology.

Architecture Differences

Both processors come from the AMD EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the Naples codename. They share the same 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, the same 4,800 million transistor count, and the same 213 mm² die size. Both use the AMD Socket SP3 and support eight-channel DDR4 memory with a recorded memory bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on both, and both provide PCIe Gen 3 connectivity. The production status is Active for both, and both were released on the same date.

The core configuration is identical: 16 cores and 32 threads on each chip. The L1 cache is 96 KB per core on both, and the L2 cache is 512 KB per core on both. The critical architectural difference appears in the L3 cache. The EPYC 7351 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7281 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache. That is a 32 MB difference, exactly double the L3 capacity in favor of the EPYC 7351. The larger L3 cache on the EPYC 7351 likely contributes to its benchmark advantage, particularly in workloads that benefit from larger working sets residing on-die.

Clock speeds also differ. The EPYC 7351 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The EPYC 7281 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The EPYC 7351 runs 0.30 GHz higher at base and 0.20 GHz higher at boost. Both chips carry a 170 W TDP, which means the EPYC 7351 achieves its higher clock speeds and larger L3 cache within the same power envelope. The EPYC 7351 also has an unlocked multiplier, as does the EPYC 7281, so both allow overclocking on compatible platforms.

The part number for the EPYC 7351 is PS7351BEVGPAF, while the EPYC 7281 does not have a recorded part number in the database. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation, and neither chip includes integrated graphics. The memory bus is eight-channel on both, and the memory support is DDR4 for both. The only recorded differences in the specification fields are the L3 cache size, the base clock, the boost clock, and the part number presence. Everything else, including transistor count, die size, process node, socket, memory bandwidth, and TDP, is identical.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly to the AMD EPYC 7351 as the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons with deltas of 7.4% in five tests and 7.3% in one test. The average benchmark score of 5710 versus 5315 gives the EPYC 7351 a 395-point advantage, and it ranks one percentile higher in the database's global CPU distribution. The EPYC 7351 also offers double the L3 cache, 64 MB versus 32 MB, and higher base and boost clocks, 2.40 GHz and 2.90 GHz versus 2.10 GHz and 2.70 GHz, all within the same 170 W TDP.

For buyers choosing between these two specific parts, the EPYC 7351 is the better performer in every measured category. The EPYC 7281's only advantage is that it exists as a lower-clocked, smaller-cache variant of the same silicon, so it may suit deployments where the performance difference is not critical. The data shows no workload where the EPYC 7281 wins. The EPYC 7351 should be selected when raw compute throughput matters, given that its multicore and singlecore scores are consistently higher. The EPYC 7281 remains a functional alternative for the same socket and platform, but the recorded benchmarks offer no reason to prefer it on performance grounds.

The nearest rival data puts both chips in similar company. The EPYC 7351 trades blows with the AMD EPYC 7F32, AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X, Intel Core i9-7920X, and Intel Xeon W-2175, all within 1% of its average score. The EPYC 7281 sits alongside the Intel Core i9-10900KF, AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X, Intel Core i9-9900X, and Intel Core i9-13900TE, also within 0.5% to 0.3%. This means the EPYC 7351 competes at a slightly higher performance tier than the EPYC 7281, even though both are 16-core Naples parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher benchmark scores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, with deltas of 7.4% in five tests and 7.3% in one test.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7351 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the EPYC 7281 has 32 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are the base and boost clocks different?

A: The EPYC 7351 has a 2.40 GHz base clock and a 2.90 GHz boost clock. The EPYC 7281 has a 2.10 GHz base clock and a 2.70 GHz boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support eight-channel DDR4 memory with 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP for both chips?

A: Both have a TDP of 170 W.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7351 | AMD EPYC 7281 |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 32 MB (shared) |

| Part Number | PS7351BEVGPAF | Not recorded |

All other recorded specifications are identical: 16 cores, 32 threads, 170 W TDP, AMD Socket SP3, Zen architecture, Naples codename, 14 nm process node, GlobalFoundries foundry, 4,800 million transistors, 213 mm² die size, 96 KB L1 cache per core, 512 KB L2 cache per core, DDR4 memory support, eight-channel memory bus, 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 3, no integrated graphics, Server/Workstation market segment, Active production status, same release date, and unlocked multiplier.