AMD EPYC 7302P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX Comparison
AMD EPYC 7302P
Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 7302P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX
The Verdict
The benchmark database positions the AMD EPYC 7302P as the overall performance leader in this pairing, taking 7 of 8 head-to-head tests. The EPYC 7302P wins every Cinebench iteration (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core, plus Geekbench multi-core, with consistent margins of 5.6% across the Cinebench suite and 3.7% in Geekbench multi-core. Its average benchmark score of 7100 sits 5.0% above the Threadripper 2970WX's 6760.
However, the Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX claims one decisive victory: Geekbench single-core, where it scores 1236 against the EPYC's 1114, a 9.9% advantage. That single result matters for lightly threaded workloads. The Threadripper also offers 24 cores and 48 threads versus the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads, yet still trails in multi-core tests, a striking outcome that points to architectural efficiency differences.
For server and workstation buyers prioritizing sustained multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC 7302P is the clear choice based on recorded data. For desktop users who need the highest possible single-thread responsiveness and prefer an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, the Threadripper 2970WX holds the edge in that specific metric. The EPYC's 63rd percentile versus the Threadripper's 62nd percentile across all CPUs reinforces the slight overall advantage of the server part.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different design generations. The EPYC 7302P uses Zen 2 architecture under the Rome codename, built on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The Threadripper 2970WX uses Zen+ architecture under the Colfax codename, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That process gap explains much of the efficiency difference: the EPYC packs 15,200 million transistors across four 74 mm² dies, while the Threadripper uses 19,200 million transistors across four 213 mm² dies. The smaller, denser 7 nm design gives the EPYC a substantial transistor-per-area advantage.
Cache hierarchies differ notably. The EPYC 7302P features 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB L3 per die, totaling 128 MB L3. The Threadripper 2970WX has 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB L3 total. The EPYC's larger aggregate L3 is a key factor in its multi-core superiority despite having fewer cores.
Memory architecture separates these parts dramatically. The EPYC 7302P uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Threadripper 2970WX uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. That more than double memory bandwidth gives the EPYC a major advantage in memory-intensive server workloads.
PCIe capabilities also diverge. The EPYC 7302P provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper 2970WX provides Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's newer standard and more than double lane count position it for expandability in server environments. The Threadripper's socket is SP3r2 versus the EPYC's SP3, and the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier while the EPYC does not.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7302P scores 2800 against the Threadripper's 2651, a 5.6% lead. The single-core R15 test mirrors that exactly: 395 versus 374, again 5.6%. Cinebench R20 repeats the identical margin: 11670 versus 11048 in multi-core, and 1647 versus 1559 in single-core, both 5.6%. Cinebench R23 follows suit with 27786 versus 26305 multi-core and 3922 versus 3713 single-core, maintaining the same 5.6% delta.
The consistency of that 5.6% margin across all six Cinebench tests is notable. It suggests the EPYC's architectural efficiency (Zen 2 on 7 nm versus Zen+ on 12 nm) provides a uniform per-clock advantage that the Threadripper's extra eight cores cannot overcome.
Geekbench results tell a more nuanced story. In multi-core, the EPYC scores 7462 versus the Threadripper's 7195, a 3.7% win. But in single-core, the Threadripper reverses the trend decisively: 1236 versus 1114, a 9.9% advantage. This is the only test the Threadripper wins, and it wins by a wide margin. The higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz on the Threadripper versus 3.30 GHz on the EPYC likely drives this single-thread result, even though both have the same 3.00 GHz base clock.
Looking at nearest rivals in the database, the EPYC 7302P's average score of 7100 places it 1.2% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7980XE (7018), 1.6% ahead of the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 (6992), and 1.9% ahead of the Intel Pentium Gold G6400 (6969). The Threadripper 2970WX's 6760 average sits 0.2% behind the Intel Core i7-12700E (6776) and 0.6% behind the Intel Xeon Gold 6154 (6803), while leading the Intel Xeon D-2775TE (6711) and Intel Xeon Gold 5317 (6710) by 0.7%.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. Core count: 16 for the EPYC versus 24 for the Threadripper. Thread count: 32 versus 48. Base clocks are identical at 3.00 GHz, but boost clocks diverge: 3.30 GHz for the EPYC versus 4.20 GHz for the Threadripper. TDP differs substantially: 155 W for the EPYC versus 250 W for the Threadripper, making the EPYC significantly more power-efficient per core.
Process technology: 7 nm TSMC for the EPYC versus 12 nm GlobalFoundries for the Threadripper. Transistor counts: 15,200 million versus 19,200 million. Die sizes: 4x 74 mm² versus 4x 213 mm². L1 cache: 64 KB per core versus 96 KB per core. L2 cache is identical at 512 KB per core. L3: 32 MB per die totaling 128 MB for the EPYC, versus 64 MB total for the Threadripper.
Memory bus: eight-channel for the EPYC versus quad-channel for the Threadripper. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s versus 93.9 GB/s. ECC support: true for the EPYC, false for the Threadripper. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes versus Gen 3 with 60 lanes. Socket: SP3 versus SP3r2. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Release dates: August 2019 for the EPYC, October 2018 for the Threadripper. The EPYC has a locked multiplier; the Threadripper is unlocked.
FAQ
Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?
A: The AMD EPYC 7302P wins 7 of 8 head-to-head benchmarks, including all six Cinebench tests and Geekbench multi-core. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2970WX wins only Geekbench single-core.
Q: How large is the EPYC 7302P's multi-core advantage?
A: Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the EPYC 7302P leads by a consistent 5.6% margin. In Geekbench multi-core, the lead is 3.7%.
Q: Does the Threadripper 2970WX have any clear strengths?
A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core it scores 1236 versus the EPYC's 1114, a 9.9% advantage. This is its sole benchmark win, but it is a decisive one for single-threaded applications.
Q: Why does the 24-core Threadripper lose multi-core tests to the 16-core EPYC?
A: The database shows the EPYC uses the newer Zen 2 architecture on a 7 nm process with 128 MB total L3 cache and eight-channel memory at 204.8 GB/s. The Threadripper uses Zen+ on 12 nm with 64 MB L3 and quad-channel memory at 93.9 GB/s. The EPYC's efficiency advantages offset its eight-core deficit.
Q: What are the power consumption differences?
A: The EPYC 7302P has a TDP of 155 W, while the Threadripper 2970WX has a TDP of 250 W. The EPYC delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing 95 W less.
Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?
A: The EPYC 7302P's average score of 7100 is 1.2% above the Intel Core i9-7980XE and 1.6% above the Intel Xeon Platinum 8260. The Threadripper 2970WX's 6760 average sits 0.2% below the Intel Core i7-12700E and 0.6% below the Intel Xeon Gold 6154.