AMD EPYC 7301 vs AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7301 and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 are both 14 nm Zen parts from the same foundry, yet they target different worlds: one is a server/workstation processor on Socket SP3, the other a desktop chip on Socket AM4. The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the EPYC 7301 across every Cinebench test, while the Ryzen counters with higher clock speeds and a much lower TDP. This analysis examines what the numbers imply for each part's intended role.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 7301 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with deltas ranging from 2% to 2.3%. In multi-core tests, the EPYC scores 1284, 5351, and 12742 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively, against the Ryzen's 1259, 5246, and 12491. Single-core results follow the same pattern: 181 vs 177 in R15, 755 vs 740 in R20, and 1798 vs 1763 in R23. The EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, paired with a 64 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory, give it a measurable edge even though the Ryzen runs at higher base and boost clocks (3.00/3.70 GHz vs 2.20/2.70 GHz). For anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the EPYC 7301 is the clear choice. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, however, offers a 65 W TDP versus the EPYC's 170 W, and its higher clocks could be attractive in power-constrained desktop builds, but the recorded data does not show any benchmark where it overtakes the EPYC. The verdict: the EPYC 7301 is the faster processor in every measured workload, while the Ryzen is the more power-efficient alternative that still trails by a small margin.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen architecture, using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts (4,800 million) and die size (213 mm²). The core difference lies in their implementation. The EPYC 7301, codenamed Naples, is a server-class chip with 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, codenamed Summit Ridge, has 8 cores and 16 threads. The L1 and L2 caches are identical per core (96 KB and 512 KB), but the L3 cache differs dramatically: the EPYC has 64 MB shared, the Ryzen has 16 MB shared. Memory support also diverges: the EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Ryzen uses dual-channel DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's memory subsystem is clearly designed for high-throughput server workloads. The sockets are different (SP3 vs AM4), and the market segments reflect that: Server/Workstation for the EPYC, Desktop for the Ryzen. The PCIe implementation also differs: the EPYC lists Gen 3 without a lane count, while the Ryzen specifies Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both have unlocked multipliers, and both were released on the same date, 2017-06-28.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a remarkably consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1284 against the Ryzen's 1259, a 2% lead. The single-core test gives the EPYC 181 vs 177, a 2.3% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 5351 vs 5246 (2% lead), and single-core is 755 vs 740 (2% lead). Cinebench R23 repeats the story: multi-core 12742 vs 12491 (2% lead), single-core 1798 vs 1763 (2% lead). The EPYC wins all six tests, but the margins are narrow. This is surprising given the EPYC has twice as many cores. The Ryzen's higher clock speeds (3.00 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) partially compensate for its lower core count, but not enough to overcome the EPYC's architectural advantages. The single-core wins are particularly telling: despite a 0.8 GHz lower base clock and 1.0 GHz lower boost clock, the EPYC still edges out the Ryzen in every single-core test. This suggests that the EPYC's memory bandwidth or cache hierarchy provides a per-thread efficiency boost, or that the boost behavior differs in practice. The data does not explain the cause, but the outcome is clear: the EPYC is the faster chip in all recorded Cinebench scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz vs 3.00 GHz, and boost clocks are 2.70 GHz vs 3.70 GHz. TDP is 170 W for the EPYC and 65 W for the Ryzen. The sockets are SP3 and AM4, respectively. The L3 cache is 64 MB shared on the EPYC versus 16 MB shared on the Ryzen. Memory bus width is eight-channel versus dual-channel, with bandwidths of 170.6 GB/s and 42.7 GB/s. The PCIe specification is listed as Gen 3 for the EPYC, while the Ryzen specifies Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The market segments are Server/Workstation and Desktop. The codenames differ (Naples vs Summit Ridge), and the generation strings are "EPYC (Zen (Naples))" and "Ryzen 7 (Zen (Summit Ridge))". Both share the same process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache sizes, ECC support, and unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are PS7301BEVGPAF and YD170BBBM88AE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7301 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The EPYC 7301 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: How does the L3 cache compare?

A: The EPYC 7301 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7301 supports eight-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 uses dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s.

Q: Who wins in Cinebench benchmarks?

A: The EPYC 7301 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, with deltas of 2% to 2.3% over the Ryzen 7 PRO 1700.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with the same transistor count (4,800 million) and die size (213 mm²).

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the EPYC 7301 a clean sweep: it wins every Cinebench test, both multi-core and single-core. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 2.3% (181 vs 177). In all other tests, the lead is exactly 2%. This means that for any workload represented by Cinebench, the EPYC is the faster processor. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700, however, has its own strengths that are not captured in these benchmarks. Its TDP of 65 W is less than half the EPYC's 170 W, making it far more suitable for compact desktop systems with limited cooling. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.00/3.70 GHz vs 2.20/2.70 GHz) could theoretically benefit lightly threaded applications that do not scale with core count, but the recorded single-core scores show the EPYC still ahead. The Ryzen's dual-channel memory and smaller L3 cache (16 MB vs 64 MB) suggest it is not designed for memory-intensive server workloads, whereas the EPYC's eight-channel memory and large L3 are clearly aimed at such tasks. In practical terms, the EPYC 7301 is the choice for multi-threaded server or workstation environments where every bit of performance matters, even at the cost of higher power consumption. The Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 is the more power-efficient desktop option, but the data shows it cannot match the EPYC in any of the measured Cinebench scenarios. The EPYC's wins are narrow, but they are consistent, and that consistency is what defines its advantage.