AMD EPYC 7302P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7302P has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Threadripper doubles the core and thread count of the EPYC part.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX boosts to 4.20 GHz, whereas the AMD EPYC 7302P boosts to 3.30 GHz. Both share a 3.00 GHz base clock.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Threadripper 2990WX uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC 7302P uses AMD Socket SP3. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s thanks to its Eight-channel memory bus. The Threadripper 2990WX has a Quad-channel bus and 93.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 7302P provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper 2990WX provides 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is built on the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Colfax, using a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It is a 2000 series desktop part with a die size consisting of 4x 213 mm² and 19,200 million transistors. Its cache layout includes 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

The AMD EPYC 7302P belongs to the EPYC 7002 series and uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, on a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 15,200 million transistors into a die size of 4x 74 mm². The cache hierarchy differs significantly: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3 cache.

The process node difference is substantial. The 7 nm node allows the EPYC to pack more cache and run at a lower TDP of 155 watts, compared to the Threadripper's 250-watt TDP. The EPYC also supports eight-channel memory and PCIe Gen 4, while the Threadripper is limited to quad-channel memory and PCIe Gen 3. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with ECC memory support, while the Threadripper is a desktop part without ECC. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a surprising split across workloads. In Cinebench tests, the AMD EPYC 7302P wins every single instance, but by a narrow margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2800 versus the Threadripper's 2758, a delta of -1.5% meaning the Threadripper trails by 1.5%. The single-core R15 result is similar: 395 for the EPYC, 389 for the Threadripper, again a 1.5% deficit for the Threadripper.

Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern. The EPYC scores 11670 in multicore against 11495 for the Threadripper, and 1647 in single-core against 1622. Cinebench R23 continues the trend: the EPYC leads with 27786 in multicore versus 27370, and 3922 in single-core versus 3864. In every Cinebench variant, the EPYC holds a consistent 1.5% advantage over the Threadripper, despite having half the cores and threads.

Geekbench tells a different story. The Threadripper wins Geekbench multicore decisively with a score of 11821 versus the EPYC's 7462, a massive 58.4% lead. In Geekbench single-core, the Threadripper also wins, scoring 1303 against the EPYC's 1114, a 17% advantage.

The overall head-to-head record is 6 wins for the EPYC and 2 wins for the Threadripper. However, the magnitude of the Threadripper's Geekbench wins is far larger than the EPYC's narrow Cinebench margins. The Cinebench scores are nearly identical, while the Geekbench multicore gap is enormous.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on almost every fundamental specification. The Threadripper has 32 cores and 64 threads, the EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks match at 3.00 GHz, but boost clocks differ: 4.20 GHz for the Threadripper, 3.30 GHz for the EPYC.

TDP is a major differentiator: 250 watts for the Threadripper, 155 watts for the EPYC. The socket differs (SP3r2 versus SP3), as do the architecture (Zen+ versus Zen 2), codename (Colfax versus Rome), and process node (12 nm versus 7 nm). The foundry changes from GlobalFoundries to TSMC.

Transistor count is higher on the Threadripper at 19,200 million versus 15,200 million, but die size is much larger on the Threadripper at 4x 213 mm² versus 4x 74 mm². L1 cache is 96 KB per core on the Threadripper versus 64 KB per core on the EPYC. L2 is the same at 512 KB per core. L3 cache differs: 64 MB total for the Threadripper, versus 128 MB total for the EPYC.

Memory channels differ (Quad-channel versus Eight-channel), as does memory bandwidth (93.9 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s). ECC support is absent on the Threadripper and present on the EPYC. PCIe generation and lane count differ (Gen 3, 60 lanes versus Gen 4, 128 lanes). The market segment is Desktop for the Threadripper and Server/Workstation for the EPYC. The multiplier is unlocked on the Threadripper, locked on the EPYC. The release date is earlier for the Threadripper (August 2018) than the EPYC (August 2019).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX wins decisively in Geekbench multicore, with a 58.4% lead over the EPYC 7302P. This indicates that for workloads that scale with raw core count and high boost clocks, the Threadripper's 32 cores provide a substantial throughput advantage. Its single-core Geekbench win of 17% also points to better lightly-threaded performance in that specific benchmark suite.

The AMD EPYC 7302P wins every Cinebench test, including multicore and single-core, but by only 1.5% in each case. This consistency suggests that the EPYC's Zen 2 architecture and higher memory bandwidth compensate for its core deficit in Cinebench's rendering workload. The EPYC also wins on platform features: ECC memory support, eight-channel memory with double the bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 4 with more than double the lanes.

For memory-intensive server tasks, the EPYC's 204.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 93.9 GB/s is a clear advantage. For workloads that rely on L3 cache, the EPYC's 128 MB total versus 64 MB is a significant edge. The EPYC's lower TDP of 155 watts versus 250 watts also makes it more manageable in dense server environments.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture. If the workload is Geekbench-style, particularly multicore integer or memory patterns that favor many cores, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is the clear choice, with a 58.4% lead. Its 4.20 GHz boost clock and 32 cores deliver raw throughput that the EPYC cannot match in that benchmark.

For Cinebench rendering tasks, the AMD EPYC 7302P edges out the Threadripper in every test, but the margin is only 1.5%. That is a statistical tie in practical terms. The EPYC achieves this with half the cores, proving the efficiency of the Zen 2 architecture and its 7 nm process.

The decisive factors are platform capabilities. The EPYC 7302P supports ECC memory, which is essential for data integrity in server environments. It offers eight-channel memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the Threadripper's bandwidth. It provides 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes versus 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. These features make the EPYC the appropriate choice for server and workstation builds that need reliability, memory throughput, and I/O expansion.

The Threadripper 2990WX is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, making it suitable for enthusiasts who want to overclock and prioritize Geekbench-style performance. Its lack of ECC and lower PCIe capacity limits its server appeal. The data indicates that for general multi-threaded Cinebench work, the two are nearly identical. For everything else, the EPYC's platform features and efficiency give it the broader use case, while the Threadripper's raw core count wins specific benchmarks by large margins. The final choice depends on whether the priority is raw core-driven Geekbench performance or server-grade features like ECC, memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 4.