CPU Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7451 and AMD EPYC 7351 are both 14 nm Naples-based server processors from the EPYC 7001 series, sharing the same socket and core architecture. The data shows a consistent performance hierarchy between them, with the 7451 winning every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, though the margins are surprisingly narrow given the core count difference. The 7451 sits at the 61st percentile against all CPUs, while the 7351 also holds the 61st percentile, placing both in the same broad performance tier despite their different core configurations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably uniform, with the AMD EPYC 7451 winning all six Cinebench tests by exactly the same margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the 7451 scores 2061 against the 7351’s 1989, a 3.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the same 3.6% delta, with scores of 290 and 280 respectively. This pattern continues into Cinebench R20, where the 7451 posts 8589 multicore and 1212 single-core, versus 8291 and 1170 for the 7351. The R23 results follow suit: 20450 versus 19742 in multicore, and 2887 versus 2787 in single-core. Every win for the 7451 is exactly 3.6%, which is unusual, it indicates the performance gap is purely clock-driven rather than scaling from the extra cores.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The 7451 averages 5915 across all tested workloads, while the 7351 averages 5710, a difference of about 3.6% as well. Looking at the nearest rivals, the 7451 sits essentially level with the Intel Core i9-9920X (5917 average, 0% delta) and trails the Intel Xeon W-2170B by 1.2%. The 7351, meanwhile, is nearly identical to the AMD EPYC 7F32 (5703 average, 0.1% delta) and beats the Intel Core i9-7920X by 0.7%. In practical terms, the 7351’s performance is comparable to a high-end desktop HEDT chip, while the 7451 edges into workstation Xeon territory.

Single-core performance deserves special attention. The 7451’s 290 in R15 single-core is only 3.6% above the 7351’s 280, and the same relative gap holds in R20 (1212 vs 1170) and R23 (2887 vs 2787). This is a small but consistent advantage that matters for lightly threaded workloads. The multicore deltas being identical to single-core deltas is telling: the 7451’s extra eight cores contribute almost nothing in these Cinebench runs, which suggests the benchmark is hitting a memory or cache bottleneck rather than a compute limit.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7451 wins all six benchmark tests outright, making it the clear choice for any workload that shows up in Cinebench. Its 3.6% lead in both single-core and multicore tests means it is ahead in threaded rendering tasks and in single-threaded responsiveness alike. The 7451’s average benchmark score of 5915 places it above the 7351’s 5710, and its nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-9920X at nearly the same average score, so it competes with top-tier desktop parts.

The AMD EPYC 7351, despite losing every head-to-head test, still holds its own in absolute terms. Its average score of 5710 is within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 7F32 and only 0.7% behind the Intel Core i9-7920X. For workloads that are not in the Cinebench suite, the 7351’s lower core count (16 vs 24) means it will draw less power under full load, its TDP is 170 watts versus 180 watts for the 7451. That 10-watt difference is modest, but in a dense server chassis with many sockets, it can add up. The 7351 also has a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz, which could give it a slight edge in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale across cores.

Neither chip wins on price because no launch MSRP is listed, but the data shows the 7451 is strictly faster in every measured test. The 7351’s only advantage is the lower TDP and higher base clock, which are not reflected in the Cinebench results. For a workload that is purely multi-threaded and not memory-bound, the 7451’s extra eight cores should theoretically provide a larger margin than the 3.6% shown here, but the benchmark data does not support that expectation.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Zen architecture with the Naples codename, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. They share the same transistor count of 4,800 million and the same die size of 213 mm². The core configuration is where they diverge: the 7451 packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the 7351 has 16 cores and 32 threads. That is an 8-core, 16-thread difference, which is substantial on paper but produces only a 3.6% performance gap in the benchmarks.

The cache hierarchy is identical between the two. Each core gets 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, and both share a 64 MB L3 cache. This means the 7451 has more L2 cache in total (12 MB vs 8 MB) because it has more cores, but the per-core allocation is the same. The shared L3 is also the same size, which is a critical detail, the 7451’s 24 cores are splitting the same 64 MB L3 that the 7351’s 16 cores use, so each core on the 7451 gets less L3 share. That could explain why the multicore scaling is so poor in the benchmarks.

Memory support is identical: DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, with ECC support enabled. Both use PCIe Gen 3 and fit the AMD Socket SP3. The production status is active for both, and both were released on the same date in 2017. The multiplier is unlocked on both chips, which is unusual for server parts and allows for overclocking if the platform permits it. The part numbers differ (PS7451BDVHCAF for the 7451, PS7351BEVGPAF for the 7351), and the 7451’s boost clock is 3.20 GHz versus 2.90 GHz for the 7351.

The clock speeds tell the real story. The 7451 has a lower base clock (2.30 GHz) but a higher boost clock (3.20 GHz) compared to the 7351’s 2.40 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The 7451’s higher boost clock explains its single-core wins, while its core advantage does not translate into proportional multicore gains. The 7351’s higher base clock means it runs faster at lower utilization, but the 7451 can push higher when a single core is under load.

FAQ

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 7451 faster than the 7351 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, the data shows the 7451 wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23 in both single-core and multicore) with a consistent 3.6% delta over the 7351.

Q: Why is the multicore difference only 3.6% when the 7451 has 50% more cores?

A: The 7451 has 24 cores versus 16, but both share the same 64 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus. The benchmark results indicate a bottleneck outside the cores, likely memory bandwidth or cache contention, limiting scaling.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 has a higher base clock at 2.40 GHz, while the 7451 runs at 2.30 GHz. However, the 7451’s boost clock is higher at 3.20 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the 7451 and 7351 have ECC memory support, along with DDR4 memory and an eight-channel memory bus offering 170.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How does each chip compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The 7451 matches the Intel Core i9-9920X (0% delta) and trails the Intel Xeon W-2170B by 1.2%. The 7351 is within 0.1% of the AMD EPYC 7F32 and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7920X.

Q: Are both chips the same generation and architecture?

A: Yes, both are from the EPYC 7001 series, use the Zen architecture with the Naples codename, and are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with the same transistor count and die size.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7451 | AMD EPYC 7351 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 16 |

| Threads | 48 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 170 W |

| Part Number | PS7451BDVHCAF | PS7351BEVGPAF |

| Cinebench R15 Multi | 2061 | 1989 |

| Cinebench R15 Single | 290 | 280 |

| Cinebench R20 Multi | 8589 | 8291 |

| Cinebench R20 Single | 1212 | 1170 |

| Cinebench R23 Multi | 20450 | 19742 |

| Cinebench R23 Single | 2887 | 2787 |

| Avg. Benchmark Score | 5915 | 5710 |

The two processors share identical specifications for socket (SP3), architecture (Zen), process node (14 nm), foundry (GlobalFoundries), cache layout (96 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, 64 MB shared L3), memory support (DDR4, eight-channel, 170.6 GB/s, ECC), PCIe (Gen 3), market segment (Server/Workstation), production status (Active), release date, and unlocked multiplier. The differences are limited to core counts, clock speeds, TDP, part numbers, and all benchmark scores.

The Verdict

The AMD EPYC 7451 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark, with a 3.6% lead over the 7351 across all six Cinebench tests. Its average benchmark score of 5915 places it alongside the Intel Core i9-9920X, while the 7351’s 5710 average puts it near the AMD EPYC 7F32. If raw performance in Cinebench-style workloads is the only criterion, the 7451 is the straightforward pick.

However, the data does not justify a large premium for the 7451. The 3.6% performance gain comes with a 10-watt higher TDP (180 W vs 170 W) and a lower base clock (2.30 GHz vs 2.40 GHz). The 7351’s higher base clock could make it more responsive in idle or lightly loaded scenarios, and its lower power draw is beneficial in power-constrained environments. The 7451’s higher boost clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.90 GHz) gives it the edge in single-threaded bursts, but the gap is small.

For a dual-socket server where every watt counts, the 7351’s 170 W TDP and 16-core configuration might be the more practical choice, especially if the workload is not heavily multi-threaded. For a workstation where the extra cores and higher boost clock matter, the 7451 is the better investment. The benchmark data shows the 7451 wins outright, but the 7351 is close enough that the decision should hinge on power budget and specific workload characteristics rather than raw Cinebench scores. Both chips sit at the 61st percentile, meaning they are mid-pack performers in the broader CPU landscape, and neither is a dominant force. Choose the 7451 for maximum performance, or the 7351 for slightly lower power draw and a higher base clock, the data supports either choice depending on your priorities.