AMD EPYC 7401P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7401P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X are both high-core-count AMD processors, but they target fundamentally different market segments: one is a server/workstation part built for scalable throughput, the other is a desktop enthusiast chip aimed at high-frequency responsiveness. Benchmark data shows a fascinating split, with the EPYC 7401P dominating in Cinebench workloads while the Threadripper 2920X counters decisively in Geekbench. The overall average benchmark scores are close—5814 for the EPYC versus 5730 for the Threadripper—but the distribution of wins tells a story of divergent architectural priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7401P establishes a commanding lead across all three Cinebench generations, both single-core and multi-core. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC scores 2384 against the Threadripper’s 2154, a 10.7% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 336 versus 304, also a 10.5% gap. This consistency carries into Cinebench R20, where the EPYC’s multicore score of 9937 tops the Threadripper’s 8979 by 10.7%, and the single-core score of 1402 beats 1267 by the same 10.7% margin. The R23 results are equally lopsided: the EPYC’s 23660 multicore and 3340 single-core scores outpace the Threadripper’s 21380 and 3018, respectively, with a uniform 10.7% delta across all four R23 and R20 comparisons. This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural efficiency advantage for the EPYC in render workloads, likely stemming from its higher core count and larger shared cache.

The picture flips dramatically in Geekbench. The Threadripper 2920X posts a multicore score of 7473, which is 37.6% higher than the EPYC’s 4666. The single-core Geekbench result is similarly one-sided: 1266 versus 787, a 37.8% deficit for the EPYC. These are massive swings, far larger than the Cinebench deltas. The Threadripper’s higher base and boost clocks—3.50 GHz and 4.30 GHz respectively, against the EPYC’s 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz—likely explain its Geekbench dominance, as that benchmark tends to favor frequency-sensitive integer and floating-point tasks. However, it is worth remembering the EPYC still wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head tests, making it the overall victor in this matchup by test count.

The average benchmark scores place this pairing in a tight cluster. The EPYC’s 5814 average is just 0.2% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2388G and 0.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon W-2175, while the Threadripper’s 5730 average sits 0.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7351 and 0.5% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7F32. Both chips land at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall performance ranking despite their divergent benchmark profiles.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if nuanced, recommendation. For users whose workloads resemble Cinebench—multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation—the AMD EPYC 7401P is the superior choice. It wins every Cinebench test by a consistent 10.7% margin, and its 24 cores and 48 threads provide a substantial parallel throughput advantage over the Threadripper’s 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC’s 64 MB of shared L3 cache also likely contributes to its render performance, as larger caches reduce memory latency in data-intensive tasks.

Conversely, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is the pick for Geekbench-style workloads that reward high clock speeds and lower latency. Its 37.8% single-core and 37.6% multicore Geekbench victories are decisive, indicating that applications sensitive to frequency—such as certain legacy software, emulation, or lightly-threaded productivity apps—will run significantly faster on the Threadripper. The Threadripper’s 4.30 GHz boost clock, compared to the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz, is the obvious driver.

There is no universal winner here. The EPYC 7401P is the better all-around compute part for server and workstation tasks, while the Threadripper 2920X is the better desktop processor for mixed-use scenarios where single-threaded performance matters. Given that both chips sit at the same 61st percentile, the choice should hinge entirely on the target application mix rather than any notion of one being categorically faster.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different generations of AMD’s Zen architecture. The EPYC 7401P uses the original Zen design, codenamed Naples, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Threadripper 2920X uses Zen+, codenamed Colfax, on a 12 nm process, also from GlobalFoundries. The smaller process node allows the Threadripper to achieve significantly higher clock speeds—3.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost versus 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz for the EPYC—while maintaining a similar thermal envelope.

The transistor counts differ substantially. The EPYC packs 4,800 million transistors on a single 213 mm² die, while the Threadripper uses 9,600 million transistors spread across two 213 mm² dies. This dual-die design is a defining feature of the Threadripper, enabling higher core frequencies but also introducing inter-die communication overhead. The EPYC, in contrast, uses a monolithic die design that simplifies memory access but limits maximum clock speeds.

Cache configurations also diverge. Both chips offer 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache differs: the EPYC has 64 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 32 MB. This 32 MB difference in favor of the EPYC is likely a key factor in its Cinebench dominance, as rendering workloads often benefit from larger pools of fast cache. The Threadripper’s smaller L3 is offset by its higher frequency, which is why it wins in Geekbench.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence: the EPYC 7401P offers 24 cores and 48 threads, exactly double the Threadripper’s 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds favor the Threadripper, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost of 4.30 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 2.00 GHz and 3.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs slightly, with the EPYC rated at 170 W and the Threadripper at 180 W, despite the Threadripper having half the cores—evidence of its higher frequency target.

Memory support separates the two further. The EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, whereas the Threadripper does not. The sockets are different: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses SP3r2. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 for both, but the Threadripper offers 60 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC’s lane count is not specified in the data.

The EPYC is classified as a Server/Workstation part, while the Threadripper is a Desktop part. The Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $649; the EPYC has no listed launch MSRP. Both have unlocked multipliers, and both are listed as Active in production. The EPYC was released on 2017-06-28, while the Threadripper followed on 2018-10-02, making the Threadripper the newer design by over a year.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD EPYC 7401P scores 23660, which is 10.7% higher than the Threadripper 2920X’s 21380.

Q: How big is the Geekbench single-core gap?

A: The Threadripper 2920X leads with a score of 1266, which is 37.8% higher than the EPYC 7401P’s 787.

Q: Do both chips support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7401P supports ECC memory, but the Threadripper 2920X does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 7401P has eight-channel memory support with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper 2920X has quad-channel support with 93.9 GB/s.

Q: Which chip has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7401P has 64 MB shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper 2920X has 32 MB.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The EPYC 7401P averages 5814, and the Threadripper 2920X averages 5730, a difference of 1.5% in favor of the EPYC.