AMD EPYC 7451 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7451 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count computing from the same generation of AMD silicon, yet benchmark results show a consistent performance advantage for the desktop-oriented part. Despite the EPYC 7451 offering double the core count, the Threadripper 2920X wins every head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, with the margin hovering near 4.3% across most tests. Both processors occupy the 61st percentile among all CPUs, indicating they sit at a similar level of overall capability, but the distribution of that capability differs markedly between server and desktop workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper 2920X wins all six head-to-head comparisons, though the margins are relatively narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 2154 against the EPYC’s 2061, a 4.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a 4.6% gap, with 304 versus 290. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 8979 for the Threadripper and 8589 for the EPYC, again a 4.3% difference; single-core R20 shows 1267 versus 1212, also 4.3%. The R23 multi-core test yields 21380 versus 20450, and R23 single-core produces 3018 versus 2887, both maintaining the same 4.3% delta.

These consistent margins suggest the Threadripper’s advantage is systematic rather than workload-specific. The 4.3% figure repeats across R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, indicating a uniform clock-driven advantage. The R15 single-core gap is slightly larger at 4.6%, while the R15 multi-core gap matches the 4.3% pattern. Notably, the EPYC 7451’s two-fold core-count advantage does not translate into any multi-core win; the Threadripper’s higher base and boost clocks overcome the core deficit in these Cinebench workloads. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the EPYC averages 5915, while the Threadripper averages 5730, meaning the EPYC actually holds a higher average across its tested benchmarks, but the head-to-head suite favors the Threadripper.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the Zen lineage but differ at the generation level. The EPYC 7451 uses the original Zen architecture with the Naples codename, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Threadripper 2920X uses Zen+ with the Colfax codename, fabricated on a 12 nm process, also at GlobalFoundries. This process refinement contributes to the Threadripper’s higher clock speeds: its base clock is 3.50 GHz compared to 2.30 GHz for the EPYC, and its boost clock reaches 4.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz.

The core counts diverge sharply. The EPYC 7451 packs 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC’s transistor count is listed at 4,800 million across a single 213 mm² die, whereas the Threadripper uses 9,600 million transistors across two 213 mm² dies, making its total die area effectively double. The EPYC’s L3 cache is 64 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 32 MB total. Both share the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes: 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The EPYC 7451 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, whereas the Threadripper does not. Both use PCIe Gen 3, but the Threadripper specifies 60 lanes from the CPU, while the EPYC’s lane count is not broken out in the data. The sockets differ: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Threadripper uses SP3r2. Both have unlocked multipliers and carry the same 180 W TDP.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 2920X wins every benchmark where both processors were tested, but the scope of those tests is limited to Cinebench workloads. In the broader picture, the EPYC 7451’s strengths lie outside this suite. Its eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth position it for memory-intensive server tasks, while ECC support suits data-integrity-critical environments. The EPYC also holds a higher average benchmark score of 5915 across all its recorded tests, compared to 5730 for the Threadripper, suggesting it performs better in benchmarks outside the Cinebench family.

The Threadripper’s wins are clear in single-threaded performance and in the Cinebench multi-core tests, despite having half the cores. Its 4.30 GHz boost clock gives it a decisive edge in single-core scenarios, where it leads by 4.3% to 4.6%. For workloads that scale with clock speed rather than core count, the Threadripper is the better fit. The EPYC, by contrast, would be expected to win in heavily threaded server workloads that leverage its 48 threads and eight-channel memory, though such tests are not included in the head-to-head data. The EPYC’s 24 cores and 48 threads remain its primary asset, but the Cinebench results show that raw core count alone does not guarantee multi-core superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7451 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Why does the Threadripper 2920X win multi-core benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The Threadripper 2920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7451’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. In Cinebench tests, this clock advantage overcomes the core deficit, producing a 4.3% lead in multi-core scores.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7451 supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 2920X does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The EPYC 7451 uses an eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper 2920X uses a quad-channel bus with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the sockets the same?

A: No. The EPYC 7451 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper 2920X uses AMD Socket SP3r2.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7451 has an average benchmark score of 5915, while the Threadripper 2920X averages 5730. However, in the head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the Threadripper wins all six tests.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Ryzen Threadripper 2920X is the better choice for workloads dominated by the Cinebench suite and for users prioritizing single-threaded speed. Its consistent 4.3% lead across most head-to-head tests, combined with higher clock speeds, makes it the stronger performer in this specific comparison. The Threadripper also carries a launch MSRP of $649, which can be stated once without further commentary.

The EPYC 7451, however, offers capabilities the Threadripper cannot match. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support make it suited for server and workstation environments where memory throughput and data integrity are paramount. Its higher average benchmark score of 5915 suggests that outside the limited Cinebench head-to-head, the EPYC may hold advantages in other tests. For a workstation user running Cinebench-like workloads, the Threadripper 2920X is the data-supported pick. For a server deployer requiring ECC and massive memory bandwidth, the EPYC 7451’s feature set aligns with those needs, even if this specific benchmark suite does not capture its strengths.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7451 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Threads | 48 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket SP3r2 |

| Architecture | Zen | Zen+ |

| Codename | Naples | Colfax |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 12 nm |

| Transistors | 4,800 million | 9,600 million |

| Die Size | 213 mm² | 2x 213 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 32 MB |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 170.6 GB/s | 93.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2017-06-28 | 2018-10-02 |