AMD EPYC 7351 vs AMD EPYC 7351P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the AMD EPYC 7351P outperforms the AMD EPYC 7351 across every recorded test. In the six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the 7351P wins all six, with a uniform delta of -10.8% relative to the 7351 in each case. This consistency is notable; the performance gap does not fluctuate between single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, suggesting a fundamental clock-for-clock or frequency-related advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Starting with multi-core performance, the EPYC 7351P scores 2231 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, against 1989 for the EPYC 7351. That is a 10.8% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the 7351P posts 9296, while the 7351 manages 8291. The same delta of -10.8% applies. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 7351P reaches 22135, and the 7351 scores 19742. Again, the gap is exactly 10.8%. These results indicate that in heavily threaded rendering workloads, the 7351P consistently delivers roughly 11% more throughput.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the 7351P scores 314 versus 280 for the 7351, a 10.8% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 1312 for the 7351P and 1170 for the 7351. Cinebench R23 single-core records 3125 for the 7351P and 2787 for the 7351. The uniformity of the delta across all six tests is striking: every single benchmark, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, shows the exact same 10.8% difference. This suggests the performance gap is systemic, likely tied to how each chip sustains its operating frequency under load, though the recorded specs for base and boost clock are identical at 2.40 GHz and 2.90 GHz respectively.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the EPYC 7351P also has Geekbench results in the database, scoring 4607 multi-core and 733 single-core. The EPYC 7351 does not have Geekbench entries in the recorded data, so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the Cinebench suite alone provides enough evidence to characterize the relationship between these two processors.

The average benchmark score also tells a slightly different story. The EPYC 7351 has an average score of 5710, while the EPYC 7351P has a lower average of 5469. This is interesting: despite winning every head-to-head Cinebench test, the 7351P has a lower average benchmark score. The explanation lies in the composition of the averages. The 7351's average includes only its six Cinebench scores, all of which are reasonably high. The 7351P's average includes those same six Cinebench scores plus two Geekbench scores, and the Geekbench multi-core score of 4607 is relatively low compared to the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22135, dragging down the overall average. So while the 7351P wins every direct comparison, its average score is skewed by the inclusion of additional tests.

Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means that despite the 7351P's consistent head-to-head wins, the two chips occupy the same overall performance tier when measured against the broader field of processors. The percentile is identical, which reinforces the idea that these are very close siblings, differentiated by a modest but consistent margin.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7351P is the better performer in every direct benchmark comparison recorded. Across six Cinebench tests, it leads by exactly 10.8% each time. There is no test in the database where the EPYC 7351 comes out ahead. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the 7351P is the clear choice.

That said, the two chips share the same 61st percentile ranking, meaning neither is dramatically ahead in the broader CPU landscape. The 7351P's advantage is real but contained; it is not a generational leap, it is a consistent edge within the same family. Buyers looking at the 7351P should expect roughly 11% better Cinebench performance across the board. Buyers looking at the 7351 should note that it is the slower of the two in every recorded test, though its average benchmark score is higher due to the absence of low-scoring Geekbench results in its record.

The EPYC 7351P also has more benchmark data available, including Geekbench scores, which may be useful for those comparing across a wider range of workloads. The EPYC 7351 has no Geekbench entries in the database, limiting its comparability in that specific test suite. For anyone making a decision strictly from the recorded measurements, the 7351P wins. The only reason to favor the 7351 would be if the Geekbench tests are irrelevant to the intended use case and the average score is the primary metric, but even then, the head-to-head Cinebench results favor the 7351P across the board.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD EPYC 7351 and the AMD EPYC 7351P share the same underlying architecture. They are built on the Zen microarchitecture, codenamed Naples, and belong to the EPYC 7001 series. The process node is 14 nm, with the chips fabricated by GlobalFoundries. Each die contains 4,800 million transistors and measures 213 mm².

The core configuration is identical: 16 cores and 32 threads. Base clock is 2.40 GHz for both, and boost clock is 2.90 GHz for both. The cache hierarchy matches exactly: 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache. There is no 3D V-Cache on either part. The TDP is 170 watts for both, and both use the AMD Socket SP3.

Memory support is the same as well: DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe is Gen 3 on both. Neither chip has integrated graphics. Both are unlocked for multiplier adjustment, and both fall into the Server/Workstation market segment. Both were released on the same date, 2017-06-28, and both are listed as active in production status.

The part numbers differ, which is the only distinguishing hardware identifier: PS7351BEVGPAF for the EPYC 7351 and PS735PBEVGPAF for the EPYC 7351P. Given that the architecture, clocks, cache, memory support, and socket are all identical, the 10.8% performance gap must stem from factors not captured in the public specification sheet. The recorded data does not include any frequency differences or binning details, but the consistent benchmark delta strongly suggests a difference in how the two chips sustain their clocks under real-world load, not a difference in architectural design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P scores 22135 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD EPYC 7351 scores 19742. The 7351P leads by 10.8%.

Q: Do the two processors have the same clock speeds?

A: Yes, both have a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the EPYC 7351 wins?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the EPYC 7351P wins all six Cinebench tests. The EPYC 7351 does not win any of the six.

Q: Why does the EPYC 7351 have a higher average benchmark score if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The average score of the EPYC 7351 is 5710, while the EPYC 7351P averages 5469. The 7351P's average includes two Geekbench scores (4607 multi-core and 733 single-core) that are lower than its Cinebench scores, pulling the average down. The 7351 has no Geekbench entries in the database.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: What is the process node for these chips?

A: Both are built on a 14 nm process node by GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors and a die size of 213 mm².

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7351P wins in every recorded benchmark category. In multi-threaded rendering, it leads by 10.8% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In single-threaded rendering, it also leads by 10.8% across the same three Cinebench versions. The 7351P additionally has Geekbench scores in the database, giving it a broader benchmark footprint, though the EPYC 7351 has no Geekbench data to compare against.

The AMD EPYC 7351 has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its only statistical edge is the higher average benchmark score of 5710 versus 5469, which is an artifact of the different test sets included in each average. If a workload relies on Geekbench, the 7351P has recorded scores, but the 7351 does not, meaning the 7351 cannot be evaluated in that suite from the available data.

For users prioritizing Cinebench-style workloads, the 7351P is the unambiguous winner. For users who rely on the average benchmark score as a summary metric, the 7351 appears higher, but that is due to missing Geekbench entries rather than superior performance. The use-case split is therefore simple: the 7351P is the stronger chip in every measurable head-to-head test, and the 7351 offers no recorded advantage other than a higher average that stems from an incomplete benchmark set.

Specification Differences

The two processors are nearly identical on paper. The only specification difference in the recorded data is the part number: the EPYC 7351 has part number PS7351BEVGPAF, while the EPYC 7351P has part number PS735PBEVGPAF.

All other recorded specifications match exactly. Both have 16 cores and 32 threads. Both run at 2.40 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. Both have a TDP of 170 watts. Both use AMD Socket SP3. Both are built on the Zen architecture with the Naples codename and the EPYC 7001 series generation. Both use a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors and a 213 mm² die size.

Cache sizes are identical: 96 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 64 MB shared L3. Memory support is the same: DDR4, eight-channel, 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, with ECC support. PCIe is Gen 3 for both. Neither has integrated graphics. Both target the Server/Workstation market segment, are marked as active in production, were released on 2017-06-28, and have no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Both have the multiplier unlocked.

The performance difference of 10.8% therefore cannot be explained by any specification listed in the database. The part number is the sole distinguishing field, and the benchmark delta must originate from unrecorded characteristics such as binning or sustained clock behavior under load.