AMD EPYC 7402 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X across every shared Cinebench workload. In all six head-to-head tests, the Threadripper 3970X wins with a consistent delta of approximately 27.1% over the EPYC 7402. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Threadripper 3970X scores 53630 against the EPYC's 39110, a difference of 14520 points. That 27.1% margin is repeated exactly in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 single-core, with R15 single-core slightly tighter at 27%. The EPYC 7402 records no wins in any head-to-head test.

Single-core performance shows the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Threadripper 3970X posts 762 versus 556 for the EPYC, a 27% advantage. In R20 single-core, the scores are 3179 and 2318 respectively. The R23 single-core result continues the trend: 7571 for the Threadripper, 5521 for the EPYC. The consistency of the 27% delta across every Cinebench iteration, both multi-core and single-core, suggests this is not workload-specific behavior but a fundamental performance gap between the two parts.

The multi-core results are particularly telling for the EPYC's server positioning. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC 7402 scores 3942, while the Threadripper 3970X reaches 5405. In R20, the gap widens in absolute terms: 16426 versus 22524. In R23, the difference grows further to 39110 versus 53630. Each successive Cinebench version, which scales rendering load with thread count, shows the Threadripper pulling ahead by roughly the same percentage. This indicates that the Threadripper's extra cores translate directly into render performance without any scaling penalty from the additional threads.

The database's average benchmark score further contextualizes these results. The EPYC 7402 carries an average benchmark score of 11312, while the Threadripper 3970X averages 10841. Despite the Threadripper's Cinebench dominance, the EPYC actually holds a higher average score across its benchmark suite. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the AMD EPYC 73F3 at 11334 (0.2% higher) and the AMD EPYC 7452 at 11279 (0.3% lower). The Threadripper 3970X sits near the Intel Core i7-6700 at 11074 (2.1% higher) and the AMD EPYC 9224 at 11118 (2.5% higher). Both processors land at the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 2 architecture, the 7 nm process node from TSMC, and an identical transistor count of 15,200 million. Each uses a 4x 74 mm² die configuration. The common silicon foundation means the performance differences come down to core count, clock speed, memory configuration, and platform design rather than architectural generation.

The core counts differ substantially. The EPYC 7402 provides 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 3970X provides 32 cores and 64 threads. That is 8 more cores and 16 more threads on the Threadripper, which explains its multi-core Cinebench advantage. The Threadripper also runs at higher clocks: a 3.70 GHz base clock and 4.50 GHz boost clock, compared to the EPYC's 2.80 GHz base and 3.35 GHz boost. The clock advantage is roughly 0.9 GHz at base and 1.15 GHz at boost, which directly accounts for the single-core performance gap.

Cache organization differs in an important way. The EPYC 7402 lists L3 cache as 32 MB per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. The Threadripper 3970X lists L3 cache as 128 MB with no per-die breakdown in the recorded data. Both parts provide 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The effective L3 capacity appears similar, but the EPYC's per-die allocation is explicit in the data.

Memory support is where the server and desktop positioning diverges sharply. The EPYC 7402 uses an eight-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Threadripper 3970X uses a quad-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 2x difference in theoretical memory bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper does not. Both support DDR4 memory. The EPYC's higher memory bandwidth is a classic server feature designed for memory-intensive workloads, while the Threadripper's lower bandwidth reflects its desktop orientation.

Platform and socket differences reinforce the market split. The EPYC 7402 uses AMD Socket SP3, the server socket for the EPYC 7002 series. The Threadripper 3970X uses AMD Socket TRX4, the high-end desktop socket. The EPYC provides PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper provides PCIe Gen 4 without a lane count specified in the data. The EPYC is not multiplier unlocked, whereas the Threadripper 3970X is multiplier unlocked, allowing user overclocking. The Threadripper's part number (100-000000011100-100000011WOF) differs from the EPYC's (100-000000046), confirming distinct product lines despite shared silicon.

Both processors carry a TDP difference that reflects their roles: the EPYC 7402 is rated at 180 watts, the Threadripper 3970X at 280 watts. The EPYC achieves its lower power envelope with fewer cores and lower clocks, while the Threadripper consumes more power to reach its higher core count and clocks.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins every benchmark shared between the two processors. It is faster in all Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, across R15, R20, and R23 versions. For rendering workloads that scale with core count, the Threadripper's 32 cores and 64 threads are clearly superior to the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads. The Threadripper also wins on single-core performance, where its 4.50 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 3.35 GHz boost clock provides a substantial edge. Applications that are lightly threaded or that depend on maximum clock speed will favor the Threadripper. The multiplier unlocked feature on the Threadripper means users can push clocks even higher, extending its lead in single-threaded tasks.

The EPYC 7402 does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but the recorded data shows areas where it is designed to excel outside the Cinebench suite. Its eight-channel memory bus delivers 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, twice the Threadripper's 102.4 GB/s. Server workloads that are memory-bandwidth bound, such as large database operations, virtualization, or high-throughput data processing, could benefit from this configuration. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments. Its 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes (CPU only) provide far more expansion capacity than the Threadripper's unspecified PCIe Gen 4 configuration, making the EPYC the better fit for systems with many NVMe drives, GPUs, or network cards. The lower 180 watt TDP versus 280 watts also matters in dense server chassis where thermal limits are tight.

The average benchmark score tells a more nuanced story. The EPYC 7402 has a higher average benchmark score (11312) than the Threadripper 3970X (10841), despite losing all head-to-head tests. This is because the average includes different benchmark suites for each processor. The Threadripper's recorded benchmarks include 3DMark tests and Geekbench, which are not present in the EPYC's data. The Threadripper's Geekbench single-core score of 1653 and multi-core score of 20112, along with its 3DMark results, contribute to its profile. The EPYC's average is based solely on Cinebench results. The database treats these as comparable average scores, placing both at the 66th percentile, but the benchmark composition differs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins all three multi-core tests: Cinebench R15 (5405 versus 3942), R20 (22524 versus 16426), and R23 (53630 versus 39110). The delta is 27.1% in each case.

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

A: The Threadripper 3970X leads by 27.1% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. Scores are 762 versus 556 in R15, 3179 versus 2318 in R20, and 7571 versus 5521 in R23.

Q: Do both processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Zen 2 architecture on the 7 nm process node from TSMC. They share the same 15,200 million transistor count and 4x 74 mm² die configuration. The EPYC 7402 uses the Rome codename, while the Threadripper 3970X uses Castle Peak.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 7402 has an eight-channel memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper 3970X has a quad-channel bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, exactly half.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The EPYC 7402 supports ECC memory. The Ryzen Threadripper 3970X does not support ECC memory in the recorded data.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7402 has an average benchmark score of 11312, while the Threadripper 3970X has 10841. Both are at the 66th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC 7402 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Can the user overclock either processor?

A: The Threadripper 3970X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The EPYC 7402 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X outperforms the AMD EPYC 7402 in every shared Cinebench test by a consistent 27.1% margin. Any user choosing between these two strictly for rendering performance, video encoding, or other CPU-bound tasks that appear in the Cinebench suite should select the Threadripper 3970X. It delivers more cores (32 versus 24), more threads (64 versus 48), higher base and boost clocks (3.70 GHz and 4.50 GHz versus 2.80 GHz and 3.35 GHz), and an unlocked multiplier for additional overclocking headroom. The Threadripper's 53630 Cinebench R23 multi-core score versus the EPYC's 39110 represents a significant absolute lead.

The EPYC 7402 is the appropriate choice for server deployments where its platform features matter more than raw Cinebench scores. Its eight-channel memory bus provides 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, double the Threadripper's 102.4 GB/s. ECC memory support is a requirement for many server workloads and is absent on the Threadripper. The EPYC's 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes enable extensive expansion, and its 180 watt TDP is more manageable in dense server environments than the Threadripper's 280 watts. The EPYC also holds a higher average benchmark score (11312 versus 10841), although this reflects different benchmark compositions rather than direct performance superiority.

The 66th percentile ranking for both processors in the database indicates they sit at similar overall levels among all CPUs, but the head-to-head results show a clear hierarchy within this pair. The Threadripper 3970X is the faster processor by every direct comparison available. The EPYC 7402 is the more capable server platform by every platform-level metric available. A user building a high-end desktop workstation should pick the Threadripper 3970X. A system integrator deploying a server where memory bandwidth, ECC, and PCIe lane count are critical should pick the EPYC 7402. The data does not support any other conclusion.