AMD EPYC 7371 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and AMD EPYC 7371 are near-identical in average benchmark score, separated by just 0.1% in favor of the Threadripper. This statistical tie masks a clear performance hierarchy, however. Across every head-to-head benchmark recorded, the Threadripper 2990WX wins, yet the margins are remarkably consistent at 4.6%. The data indicates that while the EPYC part is built for a different market segment, its compute performance is only slightly behind the desktop flagship.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking aspect of the comparison is the uniformity of the results. In all six Cinebench tests—spanning R15, R20, and R23, and covering both multi-core and single-core workloads—the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX posts a 4.6% higher score than the AMD EPYC 7371. This is not a case of one chip winning in multi-threaded tasks and the other taking single-threaded; the Threadripper dominates every discipline.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 2758 against 2637 for the EPYC. The single-core R15 result is proportionally identical: 389 versus 372. Moving to R20, the Threadripper extends its lead with 11495 multi-core points compared to 10988, and 1622 single-core points against 1551. The R23 results continue the trend, with the Threadripper scoring 27370 multi-core and 3864 single-core, while the EPYC manages 26164 and 3693 respectively. The consistency of the 4.6% delta across all tests suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

The average benchmark scores corroborate this near-parity. The Threadripper's average of 7578 is 0.1% higher than the EPYC's 7568. Interestingly, both processors share the same percentile ranking of 63 against all CPUs, meaning they land in the same performance tier overall. The nearest rival to both is the Intel Core i5-6500, which scores 7569—a 0.1% delta from the Threadripper and a 0% delta from the EPYC. This places both AMD chips in a strange position: they are far more powerful in core count than the i5, yet their average scores are dragged down by the single-core results.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX wins every benchmark category with a 4.6% margin. There are no recorded benchmarks where the AMD EPYC 7371 comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split straightforward: the Threadripper is the better choice for pure compute throughput, whether that involves rendering, video encoding, or any heavily threaded workload.

However, the EPYC 7371 is not without its advantages, though they lie outside the benchmark suite. The data shows the EPYC supports ECC memory, which the Threadripper does not. This is a critical feature for server environments where data integrity is paramount. Additionally, the EPYC's eight-channel memory bus provides 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the Threadripper's 93.9 GB/s quad-channel configuration. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive—such as large database operations or virtualized environments—the EPYC would likely be the superior platform, despite losing in raw Cinebench scores.

The Threadripper's 32 cores and 64 threads provide double the core count of the EPYC's 16 cores and 32 threads. This explains its multi-core wins, but the single-core victory is more nuanced. With a base clock of 3.00 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz, the Threadripper has a higher peak frequency than the EPYC's 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The Threadripper also uses the newer Zen+ architecture, which likely contributes to its instruction-per-clock efficiency gains.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is generation-based. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX uses the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Colfax, built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It is assembled from four 213 mm² dies, totaling 19,200 million transistors. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 7371 uses the original Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, on a 14 nm process, also from GlobalFoundries. The EPYC uses a single 213 mm² die with 4,800 million transistors.

The cache configurations are similar in capacity but differ in organization. Both processors have 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The Threadripper has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC lists 64 MB of shared L3. The key difference is that the Threadripper's L3 is likely distributed across its four dies, whereas the EPYC's is shared within its single die. This could affect cross-die communication latency, though the benchmark data does not explicitly quantify this.

The Threadripper supports 60 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, a substantial number for a desktop part. The EPYC's PCIe support is listed simply as "Gen 3" without a lane count, which is a notable omission in the specifications. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, allowing overclocking, though the EPYC's server orientation might make this less relevant in practice.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their core and thread counts. The Threadripper has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads—exactly half. Clock speeds differ as well: the Threadripper has a 3.00 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, versus the EPYC's 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. This gives the Threadripper a 400 MHz boost advantage and the EPYC a 100 MHz base advantage.

Thermal design power is another major differentiator. The Threadripper draws 250 W TDP, while the EPYC is rated at 170 W. This is notable because the EPYC achieves 95% of the Threadripper's multi-core performance (based on the R23 scores) while consuming 80 W less. The socket differs as well: the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. These are physically different sockets, meaning the processors are not interchangeable.

Memory support shows the biggest functional gap. The Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. The EPYC's memory bandwidth advantage of 76.7 GB/s is substantial. The Threadripper's market segment is Desktop, while the EPYC is classified as Server/Workstation. The Threadripper launched on 2018-08-12 with a launch MSRP of $1799; the EPYC launched on 2018-11-15 with no listed MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, which is double the EPYC 7371's 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Is the Threadripper 2990WX faster in single-core performance?

A: Yes, the Threadripper wins all single-core Cinebench tests by 4.6%, including R23 single-core with 3864 points versus 3693 for the EPYC 7371.

Q: Does the EPYC 7371 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7371 supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 2990WX does not have ECC support.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7371 has an eight-channel memory bus delivering 170.6 GB/s, while the Threadripper 2990WX has a quad-channel bus delivering 93.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, which is 400 MHz higher than the EPYC 7371's 3.80 GHz boost.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX has an average score of 7578, which is 0.1% higher than the EPYC 7371's 7568, making them statistically equivalent overall.