AMD EPYC 7351 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which chip has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X posts an average benchmark score of 5730, while the AMD EPYC 7351 sits at 5710. That is a 0.4% edge for the Threadripper in the closest rival comparison listed.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper 2920X in multi-threaded workloads?

A: Across all three Cinebench multi-core tests (R15, R20, and R23), the Threadripper 2920X wins by exactly 8.3% over the EPYC 7351. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 21380 versus 19742 for the EPYC.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap between the two?

A: The Threadripper 2920X leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core it wins 304 to 280 (8.6% ahead), and in R20 single-core it wins 1267 to 1170 (8.3% ahead). The R23 single-core result is 3018 versus 2787, again an 8.3% margin.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351 supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X does not. This is a key differentiator for server and workstation reliability use cases.

Q: How do their memory buses differ?

A: The Threadripper 2920X uses a quad-channel memory bus with 93.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7351 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, giving it nearly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Do both chips have unlocked multipliers?

A: Yes, both the Threadripper 2920X and the EPYC 7351 have unlocked multipliers. This means both are overclockable, although the Threadripper is positioned for desktop use while the EPYC targets server/workstation environments.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X beats the AMD EPYC 7351 in every single head-to-head benchmark listed. The Threadripper wins all six comparisons, with the EPYC failing to take a single test. The margins are consistent — 8.3% in five of the six tests, and 8.6% in one single-core test. If your priority is raw compute throughput in Cinebench-style workloads, the Threadripper 2920X is the better pick.

However, the EPYC 7351 is not without its own rationale. It has more cores (16 versus 12), more threads (32 versus 24), and a massive memory bandwidth advantage at 170.6 GB/s versus 93.9 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, which the Threadripper lacks. For server workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require ECC for data integrity, the EPYC 7351 is the more appropriate choice despite losing every compute benchmark.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 5730 for the Threadripper versus 5710 for the EPYC, a 0.4% difference. The percentile rankings are also tied at 61 for both. This means that in aggregate, the two chips are essentially peers, but the Threadripper's wins are consistent and concentrated in the tested compute workloads.

Pick the Threadripper 2920X if you need the best single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench performance in a desktop-class part. Pick the EPYC 7351 if you need more physical cores, eight-channel memory bandwidth, or ECC support in a server platform. The launch MSRP of the Threadripper 2920X is $649; the EPYC 7351 has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper 2920X dominates the head-to-head results. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 2154 against the EPYC's 1989, an 8.3% win. The R15 single-core test shows a similar story: 304 versus 280, an 8.6% lead. This is the largest percentage margin of any test in the comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Threadripper again wins by 8.3% in both multi-core (8979 versus 8291) and single-core (1267 versus 1170). The pattern holds in R23 multi-core, where the Threadripper posts 21380 against 19742, and in R23 single-core, where it scores 3018 versus 2787. Every single test favors the Threadripper by roughly the same margin, which indicates a consistent clock-speed or architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The Geekbench results are only available for the Threadripper 2920X in the data pack, with a multi-core score of 7473 and a single-core score of 1266. No Geekbench scores are listed for the EPYC 7351, so no direct comparison is possible there.

The nearest rival data confirms the tightness of this pairing. The Threadripper's closest rival is the EPYC 7351 itself, with a delta of 0.4%. The EPYC's closest rival is the AMD EPYC 7F32, at 0.1% delta. Both chips also trade blows with the Intel Xeon W-2175 and Intel Core i9-7920X, but those deltas are small — within 1% either way. The takeaway is that these two AMD parts are separated by a razor-thin average margin, but the head-to-head tests show a decisive and repeatable win for the Threadripper.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the EPYC 7351 has 16 cores and 32 threads. That is a 33% core advantage for the EPYC, yet the Threadripper still wins all multi-threaded benchmarks — evidence of its higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The Threadripper 2920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The EPYC 7351 runs at 2.40 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The Threadripper's boost clock is 1.40 GHz higher, which explains its consistent single-core and multi-core wins despite having fewer cores.

Power draw is comparable: the Threadripper 2920X has a TDP of 180 watts, while the EPYC 7351 is rated at 170 watts. The Threadripper uses more power but delivers higher performance in the tested workloads.

The sockets differ. The Threadripper 2920X uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC 7351 uses AMD Socket SP3. These are not interchangeable platforms.

Memory support differs in width and bandwidth. The Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Threadripper does not.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Threadripper 2920X lists "Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only)," while the EPYC 7351 simply lists "Gen 3" without a lane count in the data provided.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Threadripper 2920X is based on Zen+ with the codename Colfax, manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The EPYC 7351 is based on the original Zen architecture with the codename Naples, manufactured on a 14 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries.

The transistor counts differ dramatically. The Threadripper 2920X has 9,600 million transistors across a die size of "2x 213 mm²." The EPYC 7351 has 4,800 million transistors on a single 213 mm² die. The Threadripper effectively uses two dies, while the EPYC uses one.

Cache configurations are similar per core but differ in total L3. Both have 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The Threadripper 2920X has 32 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 7351 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache — double the L3 capacity.

The release dates are over a year apart. The EPYC 7351 launched on 2017-06-28, while the Threadripper 2920X launched later on 2018-10-02. This explains the architectural gap: the EPYC is a first-generation Zen part, while the Threadripper is a second-generation Zen+ part with a newer process node.

The market segments also differ. The Threadripper 2920X is classified as a Desktop part, while the EPYC 7351 is classified as Server/Workstation. This is reflected in the EPYC's ECC support, eight-channel memory bus, and higher core count, versus the Threadripper's higher clocks and desktop-oriented feature set.

Both processors share the same manufacturer (AMD), the same foundry (GlobalFoundries), and the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes. Both also have unlocked multipliers, which is unusual for a server part like the EPYC 7351. The part numbers are YD292XA8UC9AF for the Threadripper and PS7351BEVGPAF for the EPYC.