AMD EPYC 7351P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7351P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC holds a 4-core, 8-thread advantage.

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The EPYC 7351P scores 22,135 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Threadripper 1920X scores 19,640. The EPYC is 12.7% faster in this test, which is the same percentage margin seen across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the EPYC 7351P boosts to 2.90 GHz. The Threadripper has a 1.10 GHz higher boost clock.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7351P supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The EPYC offers exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the Threadripper 1920X support ECC memory?

A: No, the Threadripper 1920X does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7351P does support ECC memory, which is typical for its server/workstation market segment.

Q: In Geekbench multicore, which processor wins?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper 1920X wins Geekbench multicore with a score of 7,178 versus the EPYC 7351P's 4,607. The Threadripper leads by 35.8% in this particular benchmark.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen architecture using a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, but they diverge significantly in their physical design and target purpose.

The EPYC 7351P comes from the EPYC 7001 series with the codename Naples. It is a single-die design with a die size of 213 mm² and 4,800 million transistors. The Threadripper 1920X, from the 1000 series with the codename Whitehaven, uses two dies, each 213 mm², for a combined 9,600 million transistors. This dual-die configuration explains why the Threadripper has double the transistor count despite having fewer cores.

Cache organization differs notably. The EPYC 7351P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper 1920X has 32 MB of L3 cache. Both share the same per-core L1 cache of 96 KB and L2 cache of 512 KB.

The memory architecture is a major differentiator. The EPYC 7351P supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and includes ECC memory support. The Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s and lacks ECC memory support. This makes the EPYC substantially better suited for memory-intensive server workloads.

The sockets differ as well. The EPYC 7351P uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper 1920X uses AMD Socket SP3r2. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, allowing overclocking, and both support PCIe Gen 3. The Threadripper 1920X provides 60 lanes from the CPU only, while the EPYC's lane configuration is not specified in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results split cleanly along workload types. The EPYC 7351P wins all six Cinebench tests, which are rendering-focused workloads. These include Cinebench R15 multicore and singlecore, R20 multicore and singlecore, and R23 multicore and singlecore. The margins are consistent at 12.7% across multicore tests and 12.5% to 12.7% in singlecore tests.

The Threadripper 1920X wins both Geekbench tests, which are general-purpose synthetic benchmarks. It leads by 35.8% in Geekbench multicore and by 38.1% in Geekbench singlecore. This suggests the Threadripper's higher clock speeds, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.00 GHz, give it an edge in workloads that respond to raw frequency rather than core count.

Looking at the broader picture, the EPYC 7351P sits at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, while the Threadripper 1920X sits at the 60th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 5,469 for the EPYC and 5,306 for the Threadripper, a difference of roughly 3%. The EPYC's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon W-1290P with a score of 5,443, just 0.5% behind, while the Threadripper's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-9900X at 5,301, nearly identical.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The EPYC 7351P has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.40 GHz versus the Threadripper's 3.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz versus 4.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs slightly: the EPYC 7351P is rated at 170 W, while the Threadripper 1920X is rated at 180 W. Despite having more cores, the EPYC consumes less power due to its lower clocks.

The socket, codename, and generation differ. The EPYC uses Socket SP3 with the Naples codename, while the Threadripper uses Socket SP3r2 with the Zen codename under the Whitehaven generation. The EPYC's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper targets Desktop.

Memory support differs fundamentally: the EPYC has eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while the Threadripper has quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support.

The transistor count differs substantially: 4,800 million for the EPYC versus 9,600 million for the Threadripper, reflecting the latter's dual-die design. The L3 cache is 64 MB on the EPYC versus 32 MB on the Threadripper.

The Threadripper 1920X has a launch MSRP of $799. The EPYC 7351P has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results reveal a consistent pattern across Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 7351P scores 2,231 against the Threadripper's 1,979, a 12.7% advantage. In R15 singlecore, the EPYC scores 314 versus 279, a 12.5% lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the EPYC scores 9,296 in multicore versus 8,248 for the Threadripper, again 12.7% ahead. In R20 singlecore, the EPYC scores 1,312 versus 1,164, a 12.7% margin.

Cinebench R23 shows the same story: the EPYC scores 22,135 in multicore versus 19,640 for the Threadripper, 12.7% ahead. In R23 singlecore, the EPYC scores 3,125 versus 2,772, another 12.7% margin.

The consistency of the 12.7% delta across all Cinebench multicore tests, and the near-identical 12.5% to 12.7% delta in singlecore tests, indicates the EPYC's architectural advantages, particularly its larger L3 cache and eight-channel memory, deliver a uniform rendering performance uplift.

The Geekbench results flip the script entirely. In Geekbench multicore, the Threadripper 1920X scores 7,178 versus the EPYC's 4,607, a 35.8% advantage. In Geekbench singlecore, the Threadripper scores 1,185 versus 733, a 38.1% lead.

The Geekbench multicore gap of 35.8% is nearly three times larger than the Cinebench advantage the EPYC holds. This indicates the Threadripper's higher clock speeds, with a 1.10 GHz boost advantage, are far more impactful in Geekbench's workload profile, which appears to favor frequency over core count and cache capacity.

The EPYC wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks, but the two Geekbench losses are by substantial margins. The overall average benchmark score still favors the EPYC at 5,469 versus 5,306, a modest 3% edge that reflects the Cinebench results being weighted alongside Geekbench.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload type. For rendering workloads, as measured by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the AMD EPYC 7351P is the stronger processor. Its 12.7% multicore advantage across all three Cinebench versions, plus its 12.5% to 12.7% singlecore lead, comes from its 16 cores, 32 threads, 64 MB L3 cache, and 170.6 GB/s eight-channel memory bandwidth. Server and workstation users running render farms or compute-heavy tasks should favor the EPYC 7351P.

For general-purpose computing, as measured by Geekbench, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X is clearly superior. Its 35.8% multicore and 38.1% singlecore advantages stem from its 3.50 GHz base clock and 4.00 GHz boost clock, which are substantially higher than the EPYC's 2.40 GHz and 2.90 GHz. Desktop users who prioritize responsiveness in lightly threaded applications and who do not need ECC memory should choose the Threadripper 1920X.

The EPYC 7351P also offers ECC memory support, which the Threadripper lacks, making it the appropriate choice for data integrity-sensitive environments. The Threadripper's 60 PCIe lanes from the CPU provide expansion capability, though the EPYC's lane count is not specified in the database.

The average benchmark scores place the EPYC 7351P at 5,469, just ahead of the Threadripper's 5,306. Both sit near the 60th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon W-1290P, is only 0.5% behind at 5,443, while the Threadripper's nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-9900X, is 0.1% ahead at 5,301. These margins indicate both AMD processors compete tightly with their Intel counterparts in their respective segments.

The production status for both processors is Active, and both were released in 2017. The EPYC 7351P launched on June 28, 2017, while the Threadripper 1920X launched on August 9, 2017. The Threadripper 1920X carries a launch MSRP of $799.

In summary, the EPYC 7351P is the choice for rendering and server workloads where core count, cache size, and memory bandwidth matter most. The Threadripper 1920X is the choice for desktop users who need higher clock speeds and excel in Geekbench-style general workloads. The 6-to-2 win count in head-to-head benchmarks favors the EPYC, but the magnitude of the Threadripper's Geekbench victories makes it the better pick for frequency-sensitive applications.