AMD EPYC 7501 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent picture across the Cinebench suite: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins every single head-to-head comparison, though by very narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper 2920X scores 2154 against the EPYC 7501's 2135, a delta of -0.9% from the EPYC's perspective. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 304 versus 301, a 1% advantage for the Threadripper part.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. Multi-core results show 8979 for the Threadripper 2920X and 8898 for the EPYC 7501, again a -0.9% delta. Single-core R20 scores are 1267 versus 1256, also -0.9%. The most recent Cinebench R23 tests continue the trend: multi-core 21380 for the Threadripper against 21186 for the EPYC, and single-core 3018 versus 2991. Every delta is either -0.9% or -1%, meaning the differences are uniformly small but consistently in favor of the desktop part.

The broader benchmark averages reinforce this. The EPYC 7501 holds an average benchmark score of 6128, while the Threadripper 2920X averages 5730. Interestingly, this means the EPYC has a higher aggregate score across all recorded tests, even though it loses every head-to-head Cinebench comparison. The explanation lies in the benchmark sets: the Threadripper 2920X also has Geekbench scores recorded, 7473 multi-core and 1266 single-core, which pull its average down relative to the EPYC's six Cinebench-only results.

Both processors sit at the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy the same performance tier despite their architectural differences. The nearest rivals for the EPYC 7501 include the Intel Core i9-7940X at an average score of 6147 (-0.3%), the AMD EPYC 7272 at 6186 (-0.9%), the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X at 6231 (-1.7%), and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U at 6247 (-1.9%). For the Threadripper 2920X, the nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7351 at 5710 (0.4% ahead), the AMD EPYC 7F32 at 5703 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Xeon W-2175 at 5770 (-0.7%), and the Intel Core i9-7920X at 5673 (1% ahead).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons against the AMD EPYC 7501, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in multi-core workloads?

A: The largest multi-core gap is only 0.9%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper 2920X scores 21380 versus 21186 for the EPYC 7501. The R15 and R20 multi-core deltas are also -0.9%.

Q: Does the EPYC 7501 have any performance advantage at all?

A: The EPYC 7501 has a higher average benchmark score of 6128 compared to the Threadripper 2920X's 5730. However, this reflects the different test sets, as the Threadripper includes Geekbench results that are not recorded for the EPYC.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Threadripper 2920X leads in every single-core test by roughly 1%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 3018 versus 2991 for the EPYC 7501. The R15 single-core gap is 304 versus 301, and the R20 gap is 1267 versus 1256.

Q: How do the two processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 7501 trails its closest rival, the Intel Core i9-7940X, by only 0.3%. The Threadripper 2920X leads its closest rival, the AMD EPYC 7351, by 0.4%.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7501 and the Threadripper 2920X are recorded at the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD's Zen family. The EPYC 7501 uses the original Zen architecture with the codename Naples, while the Threadripper 2920X uses the Zen+ architecture with the codename Colfax. This generational shift is reflected in the manufacturing process: the EPYC 7501 is built on a 14 nm node, whereas the Threadripper 2920X uses a newer 12 nm node. Both are produced by GlobalFoundries.

The physical die configurations differ substantially. The EPYC 7501 has a single die measuring 213 mm² with 4,800 million transistors. The Threadripper 2920X uses two dies, each 213 mm², for a combined die area of 2x 213 mm² and a transistor count of 9,600 million. This dual-die design is typical for the Threadripper line, which essentially pairs two Zeppelin dies.

Core counts represent the most obvious architectural divergence. The EPYC 7501 packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper 2920X houses 12 cores and 24 threads. This means the server part has nearly three times the physical core count of the desktop part. Clock speeds tell the opposite story: the EPYC 7501 runs at a base clock of 2.00 GHz and boosts to 3.00 GHz, while the Threadripper 2920X starts at 3.50 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz.

Cache hierarchies follow the core count differences. Both processors feature 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the EPYC 7501 has 64 MB shared, while the Threadripper 2920X has 32 MB. This makes sense given the EPYC's larger core count, though the per-core L3 ratio favors the Threadripper part.

Memory subsystems also differ markedly. The EPYC 7501 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s and includes ECC support. The Threadripper 2920X uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The EPYC's socket is AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2.

PCIe capabilities are similar in generation but different in lane count. Both support PCIe Gen 3, but the Threadripper 2920X provides 60 lanes from the CPU, a figure not recorded for the EPYC 7501. The market positioning is also clear: the EPYC 7501 targets server and workstation workloads, while the Threadripper 2920X is a desktop part. Both have unlocked multipliers.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts differ by a factor of more than two. The EPYC 7501 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper 2920X offers 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds are inverted: the EPYC runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, while the Threadripper runs at 3.50 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost.

Power draw is close but not identical. The EPYC 7501 has a TDP of 170 watts, while the Threadripper 2920X has a TDP of 180 watts. This is notable because the EPYC drives more than twice the core count at a slightly lower thermal envelope.

The manufacturing process differs by one node generation. The EPYC 7501 is built on 14 nm, while the Threadripper 2920X uses 12 nm. Transistor counts are 4,800 million for the EPYC and 9,600 million for the Threadripper, reflecting the dual-die design of the latter. Die size is 213 mm² for the EPYC and 2x 213 mm² for the Threadripper.

Cache configurations differ in the L3 tier only. Both have 96 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, but the EPYC 7501 has 64 MB shared L3 versus 32 MB for the Threadripper 2920X. Memory channels are eight for the EPYC and four for the Threadripper, with corresponding bandwidth figures of 170.6 GB/s and 93.9 GB/s. ECC support is present on the EPYC but absent on the Threadripper.

Sockets differ: AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC 7501 and AMD Socket SP3r2 for the Threadripper 2920X. The release dates are also different, with the EPYC launching on 2017-06-28 and the Threadripper launching on 2018-10-02. The Threadripper has a recorded launch MSRP of $649, while no MSRP is listed for the EPYC. Both processors have unlocked multipliers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusual situation: a 32-core server processor losing every Cinebench comparison to a 12-core desktop processor, but by margins so small they are nearly indistinguishable. The Threadripper 2920X's largest single advantage is 1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and its multi-core wins are all 0.9%. For workloads that rely on the Cinebench rendering engine, the Threadripper 2920X is technically faster, but the difference is within run-to-run variance.

The EPYC 7501's case rests on its architectural strengths, which are not directly captured by the head-to-head Cinebench results. It offers 32 cores and 64 threads, eight-channel memory with 170.6 GB/s of bandwidth, ECC support, and a 64 MB shared L3 cache. These features make it suitable for memory-bandwidth-intensive server workloads, virtualization, and mission-critical applications where ECC is mandatory. Its lower TDP of 170 watts despite double the core count is also a point in its favor for dense server deployments.

The Threadripper 2920X counters with higher clock speeds, a newer 12 nm process, and a smaller footprint in the desktop segment. Its 180 watt TDP, 12 cores, 24 threads, and quad-channel memory are geared toward desktop enthusiasts who need high single-thread performance and moderate multi-thread throughput. The Geekbench scores recorded for the Threadripper, 7473 multi-core and 1266 single-core, add context for general-purpose desktop applications.

The percentile data shows both at the 61st percentile, meaning neither is an outlier in either direction. The nearest rival comparisons place the EPYC 7501 within 0.3% of the Intel Core i9-7940X, while the Threadripper 2920X sits 0.4% above the AMD EPYC 7351. These are tight groupings that underscore how close these processors are to their direct competitors.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision rests on workload and platform requirements rather than raw benchmark scores. The data shows the Threadripper 2920X edges out the EPYC 7501 in every recorded Cinebench test, but the margins are below 1% in all but one case. The EPYC 7501 offers substantially more cores, a wider memory bus, and ECC support, which are decisive for server workloads. The Threadripper 2920X offers higher clocks, a newer process node, and a desktop-oriented feature set, which are more appropriate for consumer and prosumer systems. The benchmark results alone favor the Threadripper 2920X, but the EPYC 7501's architectural advantages make it the clear choice for enterprise deployment.