AMD EPYC 7371 vs AMD EPYC 7551P Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture between the AMD EPYC 7551P and the AMD EPYC 7371. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the EPYC 7551P holds a decisive advantage, with the same 24.2% delta in each workload. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7551P scores 3276 against the EPYC 7371's 2637. The single-core result shows the same 24.2% edge: 462 versus 372. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score of 13650 for the 7551P dwarfs the 10988 of the 7371, while the single-core delta repeats at 1926 versus 1551. The latest Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: 32500 against 26164 in multi-core, and 4588 against 3693 in single-core.

The equal percentage across all six tests is notable. It indicates that the EPYC 7551P does not merely scale better with more cores; it also delivers superior per-thread performance in these specific benchmarks. The EPYC 7551P's advantage is not confined to heavily threaded workloads, it extends equally to lightly threaded ones. This makes the 7551P the outright winner in every head-to-head comparison recorded, with 6 wins and 0 losses.

The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7551P sits at 7952, while the EPYC 7371 averages 7568. This 384-point difference in the aggregate score aligns with the consistent Cinebench deltas. The EPYC 7551P also holds a slightly higher percentile position, ranking in the 64th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the 63rd for the EPYC 7371. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7551P include the Intel Core i9-10980XE, which trails by 0.5%, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M, which is 1.9% behind. The EPYC 7371's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-6500, with a virtual tie at 0% delta, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX, which is 0.1% behind.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7551P wins in every measured category, so the use-case split is straightforward. For any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or computational throughput, the EPYC 7551P is the superior choice. Its multi-core scores are 24.2% higher across R15, R20, and R23, which translates directly to faster completion times for threaded tasks such as 3D rendering, video encoding, and simulation.

More surprisingly, the EPYC 7551P also wins in single-core performance by the same 24.2% margin. This means it is not merely a many-core brute-force option; it also handles lightly threaded workloads, such as legacy applications or single-threaded scripting, with better headroom. The EPYC 7371, despite its higher base clock of 3.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the 7551P in these benchmarks.

The EPYC 7371 does not have a single recorded win. Its lower core count of 16 versus 32, combined with its lower single-core scores, leaves it behind in every comparison. Even in scenarios where one might expect the 7371's higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz to help, the data shows the 7551P's 3.00 GHz boost clock produces higher scores. This indicates that the 7551P's per-core efficiency, likely tied to its cache configuration or memory bandwidth, provides an advantage that raw clock speed cannot offset.

For users with workloads that are heavily dependent on Cinebench R23 multi-core performance, the EPYC 7551P's 32500 score offers a 24.2% improvement over the 7371's 26164. In a long-running batch render, this difference translates to roughly 24% less time spent waiting. The single-core advantage is equally relevant for interactive tasks or applications that do not scale well across cores.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the same EPYC 7001 series, share the Zen architecture, and use the Naples codename. They are fabricated on the same 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with identical transistor counts of 4,800 million and a die size of 213 mm². The memory subsystems are also identical: both support DDR4, use an eight-channel memory bus, and achieve the same 170.6 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory and use PCIe Gen 3.

The core configuration is the primary architectural divergence. The EPYC 7551P integrates 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 7371 halves that to 16 cores and 32 threads. This doubling of core count is the most obvious structural difference. However, the cache hierarchy is identical between the two: each core has 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with a shared 64 MB L3 cache. The 7551P must distribute this L3 across twice as many cores, giving each core less shared cache on average, yet it still outperforms the 7371 in every test.

The base and boost clocks differ substantially. The EPYC 7371 is clocked higher at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, while the EPYC 7551P operates at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Despite this 1.10 GHz base clock disadvantage and a 0.80 GHz boost clock disadvantage, the 7551P wins by 24.2% consistently. This implies the benchmark performance is driven by core count and IPC rather than raw clock speed. The TDP difference is modest: 180 watts for the 7551P versus 170 watts for the 7371, a 10-watt gap that is small given the extra 16 cores.

Both chips use the AMD Socket SP3, are unlocked for multiplier adjustment, and are marked active in production status. The release dates differ, with the 7551P launching on 2017-06-28 and the 7371 arriving later on 2018-11-15. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications reveal only a few fields where the two processors differ. Core count is the most prominent: 32 cores for the 7551P versus 16 for the 7371. Thread count follows the same pattern, 64 threads versus 32. The base clock shows 2.00 GHz for the 7551P and 3.10 GHz for the 7371. Boost clock is 3.00 GHz for the 7551P and 3.80 GHz for the 7371. TDP is 180 watts for the 7551P and 170 watts for the 7371.

The release date is earlier for the 7551P (2017-06-28) than for the 7371 (2018-11-15). The part numbers are distinct: PS755PBDVIHAF for the 7551P and PS7371BEVGPAF for the 7371. All other listed specifications, including socket, architecture, codename, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, cache sizes, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe generation, integrated graphics (none), market segment, production status, and multiplier unlock status, are identical between the two.

The average benchmark score also differs, with the 7551P at 7952 and the 7371 at 7568. The percentile ranking is close, 64th versus 63rd, but the 7551P edges ahead. The head-to-head delta is a consistent 24.2% across all six Cinebench tests, with the 7551P winning all of them.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7371 has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Does the higher clock speed of the EPYC 7371 help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite a base clock of 3.10 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz, the EPYC 7371 loses all six recorded Cinebench tests to the EPYC 7551P, which has a 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The 7551P wins each test by 24.2%.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500, while the EPYC 7371 scores 26164. This is a 24.2% advantage for the 7551P.

Q: Are the cache sizes the same for both processors?

A: Yes. Both have 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

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

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7551P has an average score of 7952, compared to 7568 for the EPYC 7371. The 7551P also holds a slightly higher percentile rank at 64th versus 63rd.