AMD EPYC 73F3 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two processors, and the split is entirely one-sided. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Across six Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Threadripper takes all six victories. The AMD EPYC 73F3 records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

This does not mean the EPYC is without purpose, but its strengths are not visible in these particular benchmark results. The EPYC 73F3 belongs to the server and workstation segment, and its design priorities center on platform capabilities rather than raw rendering scores. The Threadripper 3970X, by contrast, is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier, built to push performance in exactly the kind of threaded and single-threaded workloads that Cinebench measures.

The use-case split, then, is straightforward. For anyone running Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the Threadripper dominates. For server deployments where memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and ECC support matter more than Cinebench scores, the EPYC remains the relevant option. The data cannot show what the EPYC does well because the recorded benchmarks do not test its server-oriented features. What the data does show is that in every measured compute workload, the Threadripper 3970X is the faster chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different AMD generations and use different underlying designs. The EPYC 73F3 is based on Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan. It is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC and packs 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies, each die measuring 81 mm². The Threadripper 3970X uses the older Zen 2 architecture with the codename Castle Peak. It is also built on a 7 nm TSMC process, but it contains only 15,200 million transistors spread across 4 dies, each 74 mm². The transistor count difference is substantial, with the EPYC holding more than double the transistor count of the Threadripper.

The core counts differ as well. The EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double. Cache configurations also diverge. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is very different. The EPYC offers 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper has 128 MB total. That gives the EPYC twice the last-level cache.

Memory architecture is another major separator. The EPYC supports DDR4 across an eight-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Threadripper also supports DDR4 but across a quad-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, exactly half. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Threadripper. PCIe capabilities also differ: the EPYC provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Threadripper offers Gen 4 without a lane count listed in the database.

The sockets are incompatible. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket TRX4. The EPYC is not multiplier-unlocked, while the Threadripper is. The EPYC was released later, in March 2021, versus November 2019 for the Threadripper. Both remain in active production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform in direction but worth examining for the consistency and magnitude of the margins. In every Cinebench test, the Threadripper 3970X wins by exactly 26.9 percent. The delta is identical across all six tests, which suggests a consistent performance advantage tied to the Threadripper's higher core count and clock speeds.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 5405 against the EPYC's 3949. That is a 26.9 percent gap. The single-core R15 result shows 762 for the Threadripper versus 557 for the EPYC, again a 26.9 percent difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 22524 for the Threadripper and 16458 for the EPYC. Single-core R20 is 3179 versus 2323. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core result is 53630 for the Threadripper and 39187 for the EPYC, and single-core is 7571 versus 5532.

The consistency of the 26.9 percent delta across both single-core and multi-core tests is notable. The Threadripper's base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz both exceed the EPYC's 3.50 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. That clock advantage, combined with double the cores, explains why the Threadripper wins by the same margin regardless of thread count. The EPYC's larger cache and higher memory bandwidth do not translate into a Cinebench advantage in these measurements.

The average benchmark score in the database tells a similar story. The Threadripper has an average benchmark score of 10841, while the EPYC sits at 11334. Interestingly, the EPYC has a higher average score despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the EPYC's benchmark set includes only Cinebench tests, while the Threadripper's set includes 3DMark and Geekbench results that bring its average down. The Threadripper's 3DMark scores include 724 for single-thread, 1436 for 2 threads, 2777 for 4 threads, 5263 for 8 threads, 10154 for 16 threads, and 16588 for max threads. Its Geekbench scores are 1653 single-core and 20112 multi-core.

The percentile rankings are close. The EPYC sits in the 67th percentile among all CPUs, while the Threadripper is at the 66th percentile. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the AMD EPYC 7402 with an average score of 11312 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i5-1145G7 at 11279 with a 0.5 percent delta, the AMD EPYC 7452 at 11279 with a 0.5 percent delta, and the Intel Core i3-1305U at 11200 with a 1.2 percent delta. For the Threadripper, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-6700 at 11074 with a -2.1 percent delta, the AMD EPYC 9224 at 11118 with a -2.5 percent delta, the Intel Core i7-4790 at 10556 with a 2.7 percent delta, and the AMD EPYC 7D12 at 10547 with a 2.8 percent delta.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows where the two parts diverge. The EPYC 73F3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz for the EPYC and 3.70 GHz for the Threadripper. Boost clocks are 4.00 GHz for the EPYC and 4.50 GHz for the Threadripper. Thermal design power is 240 watts for the EPYC and 280 watts for the Threadripper.

Sockets differ, with the EPYC on AMD Socket SP3 and the Threadripper on AMD Socket TRX4. The architectures are Zen 3 for the EPYC and Zen 2 for the Threadripper. Codenames are Milan and Castle Peak respectively. The process node is 7 nm for both, and the foundry is TSMC for both, but transistor counts differ at 33,200 million for the EPYC and 15,200 million for the Threadripper. Die sizes are 8x 81 mm² for the EPYC and 4x 74 mm² for the Threadripper.

Cache configurations differ in L3 only. The EPYC has 256 MB shared L3, while the Threadripper has 128 MB. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses a quad-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Threadripper. PCIe is Gen 4 for both, but the EPYC specifies 128 lanes from the CPU, while the Threadripper does not list a lane count.

The market segments differ, with the EPYC aimed at server and workstation use and the Threadripper aimed at desktop. The EPYC is not multiplier-unlocked, while the Threadripper is. Release dates are March 2021 for the EPYC and November 2019 for the Threadripper. The launch MSRP for the EPYC is $3521, while the Threadripper's launch MSRP is $1999. Part numbers are 100-000000321100-100000321WOF for the EPYC and 100-000000011100-100000011WOF for the Threadripper.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the 16 cores and 32 threads of the AMD EPYC 73F3.

Q: How much larger is the EPYC's L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 73F3 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, which is double the 128 MB found on the Threadripper 3970X.

Q: Does the Threadripper support ECC memory?

A: No. The database lists ECC memory support as true for the EPYC 73F3 and false for the Threadripper 3970X.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 73F3 provides 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Threadripper 3970X provides 102.4 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR4 bus.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper 3970X scores 53630 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the EPYC 73F3's 39187 by 26.9 percent.

Q: Are both processors still in active production?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 73F3 and the Threadripper 3970X are listed as active in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 3970X boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the EPYC 73F3 boosts to 4.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for compute-heavy workloads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. Its 26.9 percent advantage across all six Cinebench tests, from single-core to multi-core, makes it the obvious choice for rendering and other threaded applications that resemble Cinebench. The Threadripper also offers an unlocked multiplier, which the EPYC lacks, and its 32 cores and 64 threads provide a structural advantage in heavily parallel tasks.

The AMD EPYC 73F3 should be chosen when its platform features matter more than raw benchmark scores. It offers twice the L3 cache at 256 MB, double the memory bandwidth at 204.8 GB/s, ECC memory support, and 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. These are server-oriented capabilities that the Threadripper cannot match. The EPYC also carries a higher average benchmark score of 11334 compared to the Threadripper's 10841, though this is influenced by the different benchmark sets in the database.

The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the Threadripper 3970X is the better processor for the workloads measured in this comparison. The EPYC 73F3 remains relevant for server deployments where ECC, memory bandwidth, and PCIe lane count take priority. Buyers should match the processor to the workload. For Cinebench-style performance, the Threadripper wins outright. For server platform requirements, the EPYC's feature set is the differentiator. The 67th percentile ranking of the EPYC and the 66th percentile of the Threadripper show they sit at nearly the same level in the overall CPU landscape, but the head-to-head results leave no ambiguity about which one is faster in these tests.