AMD EPYC 7401P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7401P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 are both Zen-based processors from AMD, but they target different segments. The EPYC 7401P is a server/workstation part with 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper 1920 is a desktop part with 12 cores and 24 threads. Both use the 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, but they diverge in memory support, cache, and socket. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains six direct comparisons between these two processors, all from the Cinebench suite. The EPYC 7401P wins every single test, with a consistent margin of roughly 26% across both multi-core and single-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7401P scores 2384 against 1890 for the Threadripper 1920, a lead of 26.1%. The single-core test shows a similar gap: 336 versus 266, a delta of 26.3%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 9937 for the EPYC and 7877 for the Threadripper, a 26.2% advantage. The single-core R20 score is 1402 versus 1111, again 26.2% ahead. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multi-core 23660 against 18756 (26.1% delta), and single-core 3340 against 2647 (26.2% delta).

The consistency of these deltas is striking. Whether the workload is heavily threaded or purely single-threaded, the EPYC 7401P maintains the same relative advantage. This suggests that the performance difference is not tied to core count scaling alone, but to a fundamental throughput advantage in the EPYC's design. The Threadripper 1920 does have higher clock speeds, with a base of 3.20 GHz and boost of 3.80 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Yet the EPYC still wins single-core tests by over 26%, which indicates that the EPYC's architecture delivers more instructions per clock in these workloads, or that the recorded boost behavior differs from the nominal figures.

The database also includes Geekbench results for the EPYC 7401P, with a multi-core score of 4666 and a single-core score of 787. The Threadripper 1920 has no Geekbench entries in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there. However, the Cinebench results are comprehensive enough to establish a clear hierarchy.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the AMD EPYC 7401P is the faster processor in every benchmark where both are measured. It leads by 26.1% to 26.3% across all six Cinebench tests, with no test where the Threadripper 1920 comes close. The Threadripper's higher clock speeds do not translate into a win, even in single-threaded tasks. The EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with a larger 64 MB L3 cache, appear to provide a decisive advantage.

The Threadripper 1920 does have some attributes that might appeal in specific contexts. It has a lower TDP of 140 watts versus 170 watts, and it is a desktop part with a quad-channel memory bus, while the EPYC uses eight channels. But from a pure performance standpoint, the EPYC 7401P is the clear winner. The database shows that the EPYC sits at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, while the Threadripper is at the 60th, a marginal difference in overall standing. However, the head-to-head results are unambiguous.

For anyone choosing between these two based on benchmark performance alone, the EPYC 7401P is the superior choice. The Threadripper 1920 is end-of-life, while the EPYC remains active, which may also factor into long-term availability and support. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Threadripper does not, a critical feature for server and workstation reliability.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7401P wins every recorded benchmark, so it is the better choice for any workload represented by Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core. Its 24 cores and 48 threads give it a substantial advantage in heavily threaded rendering, simulation, and compilation tasks. The 64 MB shared L3 cache likely helps with data reuse in large working sets. The eight-channel memory bus, with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, is more than double the Threadripper's 85.3 GB/s, which benefits memory-intensive applications.

The Threadripper 1920 does have a few areas where it is not worse, but none where it wins. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.20 GHz and 3.80 GHz) are the only numerical advantages in the specification table. It also has a lower TDP, which could be relevant in power-constrained environments, but the database does not include power efficiency benchmarks. The Threadripper's 60 PCIe lanes (CPU only) are explicitly listed, while the EPYC's PCIe lane count is not specified, so no comparison is possible there. The Threadripper is a desktop part, which might be easier to integrate into a consumer motherboard, but the EPYC uses Socket SP3, a server platform.

In terms of production status, the EPYC is active, while the Threadripper is end-of-life. This means the EPYC is more likely to receive ongoing support and availability. The Threadripper also lacks ECC support, which is a significant drawback for error-sensitive workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7401P has an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Threadripper 1920 has a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory, but the Threadripper 1920 does not.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper 1920 has 32 MB.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the Threadripper 1920 wins?

A: No. In all six recorded Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7401P wins with a delta of at least 26.1%.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The EPYC 7401P is listed as active, while the Threadripper 1920 is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen architecture and use the 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. However, they belong to different families. The EPYC 7401P is part of the EPYC 7001 series with the codename Naples, while the Threadripper 1920 is from the 1000 series with the codename Whitehaven. The EPYC's generation is listed as "EPYC (Zen (Naples))", and the Threadripper's as "Ryzen Threadripper (Zen (Whitehaven))".

The transistor counts differ significantly. The EPYC 7401P has 4,800 million transistors on a single 213 mm² die. The Threadripper 1920 has 9,600 million transistors across two 213 mm² dies, which is why its die size is listed as "2x 213 mm²". This dual-die design likely contributes to the Threadripper's higher clock speeds, but it also means a larger physical footprint.

The L3 cache is another major difference. The EPYC has 64 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 32 MB. The L1 and L2 caches are identical: 96 KB per core and 512 KB per core, respectively. The memory controllers also differ: the EPYC uses eight channels, the Threadripper uses four. This directly impacts memory bandwidth, as noted earlier.

The sockets are different as well. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses Socket SP3r2. Both are physically distinct, so they are not interchangeable. The EPYC is a server/workstation part, while the Threadripper is a desktop part. The EPYC supports ECC memory, the Threadripper does not. The Threadripper lists 60 PCIe lanes (CPU only) at Gen 3, while the EPYC only lists "Gen 3" without a lane count.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the database:

• Cores: 24 (EPYC) vs 12 (Threadripper)
• Threads: 48 vs 24
• Base clock: 2000 MHz vs 3200 MHz
• Boost clock: 3000 MHz vs 3800 MHz
• TDP: 170 W vs 140 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 vs AMD Socket SP3r2
• Codename: Naples vs Whitehaven
• Generation: EPYC (Zen (Naples)) vs Ryzen Threadripper (Zen (Whitehaven))
• Transistors: 4,800 million vs 9,600 million
• Die size: 213 mm² vs 2x 213 mm²
• L3 cache: 64 MB shared vs 32 MB
• Memory bus: Eight-channel vs Quad-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 170.6 GB/s vs 85.3 GB/s
• ECC memory: True vs False
• PCIe: Gen 3 (no lane count) vs Gen 3, 60 Lanes (CPU only)
• Market segment: Server/Workstation vs Desktop
• Production status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release date: 2017-06-28 vs not recorded
• Part number: PS740PBEVHCAF vs YD1920A9UC9AE

The EPYC 7401P also has Geekbench scores in the database (multi-core 4666, single-core 787), while the Threadripper 1920 does not. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, and both use DDR4 memory. The process node, foundry, L1 and L2 cache sizes, and integrated graphics (none) are identical.