AMD EPYC 7302 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two processors is unusually one-sided. The recorded data shows the AMD EPYC 7302 winning all six head-to-head comparisons, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX does not take a single win in any of the measured tests, which makes the use-case split straightforward: the EPYC 7302 is the stronger performer in every workload category the database tracks.

For multi-core rendering tasks, the EPYC 7302 leads consistently, though the margin is narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2836 against the Threadripper's 2758, a 2.8% advantage. The pattern repeats in R20 multi-core with 11818 versus 11495, and in R23 multi-core with 28140 versus 27370, both showing a 2.7% gap. These are not dramatic differences, but they are uniform across all three generations of the Cinebench test, indicating a steady, repeatable advantage for the EPYC part in threaded workloads.

Single-core performance tells the same story. The EPYC 7302 posts 400 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 389 for the Threadripper, a 2.7% lead. In R20 single-core, it is 1668 against 1622, again a 2.8% gap. In R23 single-core, the EPYC reaches 3972 versus 3864, a 2.7% margin. These consistent single-core wins suggest the EPYC's newer architecture delivers better per-thread efficiency, which matters for lightly threaded tasks like daily desktop responsiveness or older applications that cannot use many cores.

The EPYC 7302 also holds a higher average benchmark score overall. Its average across all recorded tests is 8139, while the Threadripper 2990WX averages 7578. That difference places the EPYC at the 64th percentile among all CPUs in the database, slightly above the Threadripper's 63rd percentile. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce this positioning: the EPYC 7302 sits within 0.8% of the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y, Xeon Platinum 8180M, Xeon Gold 6326, and Core i3-8100, while the Threadripper's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6500, i5-4590, i5-7400, and the AMD EPYC 7371, with deltas ranging from 1.5% to -0.4%.

In practical terms, neither chip is a clear winner for a specific niche based on benchmark wins alone. The EPYC 7302 wins everywhere, so any workload you pick, from multi-core rendering to single-core responsiveness, favors the EPYC. The Threadripper's only advantage in the data is its higher core count and boost clock, but those do not translate into benchmark victories in any of the six recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and use fundamentally different designs. The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is built on the Zen+ architecture with the Colfax codename, part of the 2000 series, fabricated on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. Its die consists of four 213 mm² chiplets, totaling 19,200 million transistors. The cache layout includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a 64 MB L3 cache. Memory support is DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, providing 93.9 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory is not supported. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 60 lanes from the CPU. It uses the AMD Socket SP3r2 and has an unlocked multiplier, which allows overclocking on supported boards.

The AMD EPYC 7302 belongs to the EPYC 7002 series, built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It has 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The package uses four 74 mm² chiplets, containing 15,200 million transistors. Cache is organized as 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, giving a total L3 of 128 MB, double the Threadripper's 64 MB. Memory support is DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the Threadripper's 93.9 GB/s. ECC memory is supported, which is a key differentiator for server workloads. PCIe connectivity is Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, double the lane count and one generation newer. It uses the AMD Socket SP3 and has a locked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option.

The architectural split is clear: the Threadripper is a desktop-oriented part with more cores and higher clocks but older Zen+ cores, a smaller L3 cache, and narrower memory and PCIe capabilities. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with fewer cores but newer Zen 2 cores, a much larger total L3 cache, double the memory channels, double the memory bandwidth, double the PCIe lanes, and newer PCIe generation, plus ECC support. The 7 nm process at TSMC versus 12 nm at GlobalFoundries also explains the EPYC's lower TDP of 155 W against the Threadripper's 250 W, despite the EPYC having half the cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six head-to-head results all favor the EPYC 7302, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 2836 against the Threadripper's 2758, a delta of -2.8% from the Threadripper's perspective. That is the largest multi-core gap in the set. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 11818 for the EPYC and 11495 for the Threadripper, a -2.7% delta. In R23 multi-core, the EPYC posts 28140 versus 27370, again a -2.7% delta. The multi-core margins hover between 2.7% and 2.8% across all three Cinebench versions, showing that the EPYC's architectural advantages translate into a steady, if modest, lead in heavily threaded workloads. This is notable because the Threadripper has twice as many cores, 32 versus 16, and a higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. Despite those apparent advantages, the EPYC still wins, which points to the efficiency of the Zen 2 cores and the larger 128 MB L3 cache compensating for the core count deficit.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the EPYC scores 400 versus 389, a -2.7% delta. In R20 single-core, it is 1668 versus 1622, a -2.8% delta. In R23 single-core, the EPYC reaches 3972 versus 3864, a -2.7% delta. The single-core margins are essentially identical to the multi-core margins, suggesting the EPYC's per-core performance advantage is uniform regardless of thread count. The Threadripper's higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz does not overcome the EPYC's newer Zen 2 core design, which delivers better instructions per clock at a lower 3.30 GHz boost.

Across all six tests, the EPYC wins by a margin between 2.7% and 2.8%. No test shows a larger gap, and none shows a smaller one. This uniformity makes the comparison easy to summarize: the EPYC 7302 is consistently about 2.7% to 2.8% faster than the Threadripper 2990WX in every Cinebench test recorded. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with the EPYC at 8139 versus the Threadripper's 7578, a difference of about 7.4% in the EPYC's favor. The EPYC's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y, sits at 8147, just 0.1% above the EPYC, while the Threadripper's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6500, sits at 7569, just 0.1% below it.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: for any workload measured in this database, the AMD EPYC 7302 is the better processor. It wins all six head-to-head tests, both multi-core and single-core, with consistent margins of 2.7% to 2.8%. Its average benchmark score of 8139 is higher than the Threadripper's 7578, and it sits at a higher percentile among all CPUs, 64th versus 63rd.

If you are choosing based purely on benchmark performance, the EPYC 7302 is the pick. It delivers better multi-core rendering performance despite having half the cores, and better single-core responsiveness despite a lower boost clock. It also brings server-class features that the Threadripper lacks: ECC memory support, eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes, and a 155 W TDP that is 95 W lower than the Threadripper's 250 W. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $978.

The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is not without reasons to exist. It has 32 cores and 64 threads, double the EPYC's core and thread counts, and a higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz. It also has an unlocked multiplier, which the EPYC lacks, and it is positioned as a desktop part, meaning it can be used in a consumer-style system rather than a server platform. Its 12 nm process and GlobalFoundries foundry are older, and its quad-channel memory and Gen 3 PCIe are narrower, but none of those factors produce a benchmark win in the recorded data.

The verdict is straightforward: the EPYC 7302 wins every measured comparison, so users prioritizing performance in Cinebench workloads should choose it. The Threadripper 2990WX may appeal to users who need the higher core count for non-benchmark workloads or who require an unlocked multiplier, but the database shows no performance scenario where it beats the EPYC. The EPYC 7302 is the stronger part across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Does the EPYC 7302 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the AMD EPYC 7302 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the EPYC 7302 has a boost clock of 3.30 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7302 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper 2990WX has a quad-channel bus with 93.9 GB/s, so the EPYC offers more than double the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7302 has a total L3 cache of 128 MB, arranged as 32 MB per die. The Threadripper 2990WX has 64 MB of L3 cache in total.

Q: Does the Threadripper 2990WX have an unlocked multiplier?

A: Yes, the Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7302 has a locked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX | AMD EPYC 7302 |

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

| Cores | 32 | 16 |

| Threads | 64 | 32 |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 250 W | 155 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Zen+ | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Colfax | Rome |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 19,200 million | 15,200 million |

| Die Size | 4x 213 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 32 MB (per die), 128 MB total |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 93.9 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $1799 | $978 |