CPU Comparison

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X and AMD EPYC 7501 share the same Zen architecture and 14nm process node, yet they target entirely different corners of the AMD lineup. The Threadripper 1950X is a desktop part aimed at content creators, while the EPYC 7501 is a server processor built for datacenter workloads. This head-to-head comparison reveals a curious pattern: the desktop chip wins every single benchmark in this dataset, despite having half the cores of its server sibling. The data challenges the assumption that more cores automatically translate to higher performance, pointing instead to clock speed and platform design as decisive factors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X wins with a uniform deltaPct of 10.6% over the AMD EPYC 7501. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper scores 2362 against the EPYC’s 2135. The single-core R15 test shows 333 versus 301, again a 10.6% gap. This pattern repeats in R20 multicore (9844 vs 8898), R20 single-core (1389 vs 1256), R23 multicore (23440 vs 21186), and R23 single-core (3309 vs 2991). No test in this set shows the EPYC pulling ahead.

What makes this interesting is that the EPYC 7501 has 32 cores and 64 threads, exactly double the Threadripper’s 16 cores and 32 threads. Yet the Threadripper’s boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz, appears to carry the day. The 10.6% advantage is identical across every workload, which suggests a consistent per-core performance edge rather than a scaling advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper’s 3309 score indicates a much faster individual core, and that advantage compounds even in multicore tests despite the EPYC’s core-count surplus.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Threadripper 1950X averages 6231, while the EPYC 7501 averages 6128. That puts the Threadripper 1.7% ahead of the EPYC in overall performance. The nearest-rival data reinforces this: the Threadripper’s closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U (avg score 6247, deltaPct -0.3%), while the EPYC sits just below with a 6128 average. Both chips occupy a similar performance percentile (62 for Threadripper, 61 for EPYC), meaning they land in the same overall tier despite their different market segments.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Zen architecture and manufactured on a 14nm process node by GlobalFoundries. The Threadripper 1950X carries the codename Zen (Whitehaven) and belongs to the Ryzen Threadripper generation, while the EPYC 7501 is codenamed Naples and belongs to the EPYC generation. The die sizes differ: the Threadripper uses two dies measuring 213 mm² each, totaling 2x 213 mm², whereas the EPYC uses a single 213 mm² die. Transistor counts diverge significantly, with the Threadripper listing 9,600 million transistors versus the EPYC’s 4,800 million.

Cache configurations also differ. Both share 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is where they split. The Threadripper offers 32 MB of L3, while the EPYC provides 64 MB shared. That double L3 capacity on the EPYC is notable, yet it does not translate into benchmark wins in this dataset. Memory support is another major divergence: the Threadripper uses a quad-channel DDR4 bus delivering 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s. The EPYC supports ECC memory; the Threadripper does not. The EPYC also lists Gen 3 PCIe support, a field left null for the Threadripper.

Sockets and platforms are entirely different. The Threadripper fits AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. Both have unlocked multipliers, but the Threadripper’s base clock of 3.40 GHz and boost of 4.00 GHz far exceed the EPYC’s 2000.00 MHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Threadripper’s TDP is 180W, slightly higher than the EPYC’s 170W, which aligns with its higher clocks. The EPYC launched roughly six weeks earlier, on 2017-06-28, versus the Threadripper’s 2017-08-09.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Threadripper 1950X wins every benchmark in this comparison. It holds a 10.6% edge in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, covering both single-core and multicore workloads. For users prioritizing raw render performance in Cinebench, the Threadripper is the clear choice. Its higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz gives it a per-core advantage that the EPYC cannot overcome, even with double the cores.

The EPYC 7501 does not win any benchmark here, but that does not mean it lacks purpose. Its strengths lie outside this benchmark suite. The eight-channel memory bus and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth are double what the Threadripper offers, which matters for memory-bound server workloads. ECC memory support is a critical feature for datacenter reliability, and the EPYC’s Gen 3 PCIe support enables high-speed I/O expansion. The 64 MB shared L3 cache is also twice the Threadripper’s, potentially aiding workloads with large working sets.

For desktop users running Cinebench, the Threadripper wins outright. For server administrators running virtualization, database, or memory-intensive applications, the EPYC’s platform features, not its Cinebench scores, define its value. The benchmark data simply does not capture those server-specific advantages.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Threadripper 1950X beat the EPYC 7501 despite having half the cores?

A: The Threadripper’s boost clock of 4.00 GHz is substantially higher than the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz. That per-core speed advantage yields a consistent 10.6% lead across all Cinebench tests, outweighing the EPYC’s 32-core count.

Q: Does the EPYC 7501 ever win in any benchmark?

A: No. In the six head-to-head Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multicore), the Threadripper wins all six with a deltaPct of 10.6% each.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Threadripper averages 6231, while the EPYC averages 6128. That is a 1.7% gap in favor of the Threadripper, per the nearestRivals data.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Threadripper uses a quad-channel DDR4 bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC uses an eight-channel bus with 170.6 GB/s, double the bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper does not.

Q: Are both processors built on the same node?

A: Yes, both use the Zen architecture on a 14nm process node from GlobalFoundries. Their codenames differ: Whitehaven for the Threadripper, Naples for the EPYC.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7501 has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Threadripper’s 32 MB. Both have identical per-core L1 and L2 caches.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X | AMD EPYC 7501 |

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

| Cores | 16 | 32 |

| Threads | 32 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 170 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Codename | Zen (Whitehaven) | Naples |

| Generation | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen (Whitehaven)) | EPYC (Zen (Naples)) |

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

| Die Size | 2x 213 mm² | 213 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | 170.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | false | true |

| PCIe | null | Gen 3 |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2017-08-09 | 2017-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | $999 | null |

| Part Number | YD195XA8UGAAE | PS7501BEVIHAF |

The Verdict

The benchmark data points firmly toward the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X for anyone measuring performance through Cinebench. It wins all six head-to-head tests with a uniform 10.6% margin, and its average benchmark score of 6231 edges out the EPYC’s 6128. The Threadripper’s 4.00 GHz boost clock is the clear differentiator, delivering superior per-core performance that the EPYC’s 32 cores cannot match in these workloads. Its percentile rank of 62 versus the EPYC’s 61 reinforces that it is slightly better positioned among all CPUs.

The AMD EPYC 7501 does not win a single benchmark here, but the verdict is not a simple dismissal. Its eight-channel memory bus with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and Gen 3 PCIe make it a server platform, not a render workstation. The 64 MB L3 cache and 32-core count are architectural advantages for datacenter tasks that Cinebench does not measure. For a desktop user running Cinebench, the Threadripper is the obvious pick. For a server administrator prioritizing memory throughput and reliability, the EPYC’s platform features outweigh its benchmark deficit. The data shows that core count alone does not decide performance, clock speed and platform design matter just as much.