AMD EPYC 7401P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear split between these two AMD processors, with the EPYC 7401P dominating the Cinebench suite while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950X takes a commanding lead in Geekbench. Across all six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7401P wins by a consistent margin of 0.9%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2384 against 2362 for the Threadripper. The R20 multicore test shows 9937 versus 9844, and the R23 multicore result is 23660 against 23440. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R15 shows 336 versus 333, R20 shows 1402 versus 1389, and R23 shows 3340 versus 3309. These are narrow margins, but they are perfectly uniform across every Cinebench iteration.

The Geekbench results tell a completely different story. The Threadripper 1950X scores 7989 in Geekbench multicore, which is 71.2% higher than the EPYC 7401P's 4666. In Geekbench single-core, the Threadripper's 1183 beats the EPYC's 787 by 50.3%. This is a massive reversal. The EPYC's advantage in Cinebench is real but small, while the Threadripper's advantage in Geekbench is enormous. The database records 6 wins for the EPYC and 2 wins for the Threadripper, but the magnitude of the Threadripper's victories dwarfs the EPYC's consistent but modest leads.

Looking at the broader context, the Threadripper 1950X sits at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 6231. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U at 6247 (0.3% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6186 (0.7% behind), the Intel Core i9-7940X at 6147 (1.4% behind), and the AMD EPYC 7501 at 6128 (1.7% behind). The EPYC 7401P holds the 61st percentile with an average score of 5814. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E-2388G at 5805 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Xeon W-2175 at 5770 (0.8% ahead), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X at 5730 (1.5% ahead), and the AMD EPYC 7451 at 5915 (1.7% behind). The two CPUs are separated by roughly 417 points in average score, yet their benchmark profiles could not be more different.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7401P is the clear winner for Cinebench workloads. Its 24 cores and 48 threads provide a tangible advantage in rendering tasks, even at lower clock speeds. The 0.9% margin across every Cinebench test suggests a consistent architectural efficiency in this specific workload. The EPYC also benefits from a larger shared L3 cache of 64 MB, compared to the Threadripper's 32 MB, which likely contributes to its sustained performance in multi-threaded rendering.

The Threadripper 1950X dominates Geekbench, which measures a broader range of real-world tasks including memory operations, cryptography, and integer performance. The 71.2% multicore and 50.3% single-core advantages are substantial. The Threadripper's higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz explains part of this gap. The Threadripper also has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 2.00 GHz. For applications that are latency-sensitive or rely on single-thread bursts, the Threadripper is clearly the better choice.

The EPYC's memory subsystem deserves attention. It uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses a quad-channel bus with 85.3 GB/s. This gives the EPYC exactly double the theoretical memory bandwidth. In memory-bound workloads, this advantage could be decisive. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which the Threadripper does not. Server and workstation users who require data integrity will find this feature essential.

The Threadripper is positioned as a desktop processor, while the EPYC targets the server and workstation segment. This distinction matters for platform selection. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The Threadripper has a TDP of 180 watts, slightly higher than the EPYC's 170 watts, but the EPYC delivers more cores within that power envelope. The Threadripper's unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, a feature that desktop enthusiasts will appreciate, while the EPYC's unlocked multiplier is less relevant in server environments.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD EPYC 7401P is the better choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, where its 24 cores consistently edge out the Threadripper's 16 cores. The EPYC also offers double the memory bandwidth, ECC support, and a more power-efficient core count at 170 watts. Server deployments, virtualized environments, and memory-intensive workloads will favor the EPYC.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X is the better choice for Geekbench-style workloads that mix single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. Its 71.2% multicore and 50.3% single-core advantages in Geekbench are decisive. Desktop users who prioritize responsiveness, gaming, and general application performance will prefer the Threadripper. Its higher clock speeds and unlocked multiplier provide flexibility that the EPYC cannot match in these scenarios.

The average benchmark scores place the Threadripper slightly ahead at 6231 versus 5814, a difference of about 7.2%. The percentile rankings are nearly identical at 62 and 61. The EPYC's nearest rival includes the Threadripper 2920X, which sits 1.5% behind, while the Threadripper's nearest rivals include the EPYC 7501, which sits 1.7% behind. Neither processor is a runaway winner in the overall database, but the workload-specific results are stark.

For users whose primary benchmark is Cinebench, the EPYC 7401P is the logical pick. For users whose primary benchmark is Geekbench, the Threadripper 1950X is clearly superior. The choice comes down to workload composition. The EPYC wins on core count and memory bandwidth. The Threadripper wins on clock speed and single-thread performance. The verdict is not about which is better overall, but which better matches the intended use.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks head-to-head?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P wins 6 out of 8 benchmark tests, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X winning the remaining 2 Geekbench tests.

Q: What is the margin of the Threadripper's Geekbench multicore win?

A: The Threadripper 1950X scores 7989 versus the EPYC 7401P's 4666, a difference of 71.2%.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The EPYC 7401P supports 170.6 GB/s via eight-channel memory, while the Threadripper 1950X supports 85.3 GB/s via quad-channel memory.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 1950X does not.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper 1950X has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 1950X has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7401P's 3.00 GHz.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD's Zen architecture using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but they diverge significantly in implementation. The Threadripper 1950X uses the Zen codename with the Whitehaven generation, while the EPYC 7401P uses the Naples codename. The Threadripper features two 213 mm² dies with a combined transistor count of 9,600 million. The EPYC uses a single 213 mm² die with 4,800 million transistors. This means the Threadripper effectively doubles the transistor budget of the EPYC in a desktop-oriented package.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both processors share the same L1 cache of 96 KB per core and L2 cache of 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is where they split: the Threadripper has 32 MB total, while the EPYC has 64 MB shared. This larger shared cache on the EPYC likely explains its consistent Cinebench advantage, as rendering workloads benefit from larger pools of fast memory.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Threadripper uses a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with 85.3 GB/s of theoretical bandwidth. The EPYC uses an eight-channel DDR4 bus with 170.6 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the Threadripper lacks this capability. The EPYC additionally supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Threadripper's PCIe information is not recorded in the database.

Clock speeds favor the Threadripper significantly. The Threadripper has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The EPYC has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. This 1.00 GHz boost clock advantage is substantial and explains the Threadripper's Geekbench dominance. The TDP figures are close, with the Threadripper at 180 watts and the EPYC at 170 watts, but the EPYC delivers 24 cores within that slightly lower envelope.

The socket platforms differ, with the Threadripper using AMD Socket SP3r2 and the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3. Both processors have unlocked multipliers, but the market segments are distinct: the Threadripper is classified as Desktop, while the EPYC is Server/Workstation. The Threadripper launched on August 9, 2017, with a launch MSRP of $999. The EPYC launched earlier on June 28, 2017, with no recorded launch price. Both remain in active production. The Threadripper's part number is YD195XA8UGAAE, and the EPYC's is PS740PBEVHCAF. The EPYC offers 24 cores, 48 threads, 64 MB L3, eight-channel memory, and ECC support. The Threadripper offers 16 cores, 32 threads, 32 MB L3, quad-channel memory, higher clocks, and a higher average benchmark score. The architecture differences explain every benchmark result in the database.