AMD EPYC 7551 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3100U Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551 has an average benchmark score of 6391, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U scores 6247. The EPYC leads by 144 points overall, but both processors sit at the 62nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each chip?

A: The EPYC 7551 offers 32 cores and 64 threads, whereas the Ryzen 3 3100U has just 2 cores and 2 threads. This represents a 16x difference in core count and a 32x difference in thread count.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Ryzen 3 3100U has a higher boost clock at 3.20 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz. However, the EPYC has a higher base clock at 2.00 GHz versus 1.90 GHz for the Ryzen.

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The EPYC 7551 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 170.6 GB/s. The Ryzen 3 3100U uses dual-channel DDR4, delivering 38.4 GB/s — roughly 4.4 times less bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7551 has ECC memory support enabled, while the Ryzen 3 3100U does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Ryzen 3 3100U features integrated graphics, with Radeon Vega 8. The EPYC 7551 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for its server segment.

The Verdict

The data points to two completely different deployment scenarios. The AMD EPYC 7551 is the clear choice for server and workstation workloads that demand massive parallel throughput. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with eight-channel memory and 64 MB of shared L3 cache, make it suited for heavy multi-threaded compute tasks. The EPYC also carries a 180 W TDP and uses the AMD Socket SP3 platform, reflecting its data-center orientation.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U, by contrast, is a mobile processor with 2 cores and 2 threads. Its 15 W TDP and Socket FP5 indicate an ultraportable or low-power laptop design. It includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics, so it can handle display output and light multimedia tasks without a discrete GPU. Its boost clock of 3.20 GHz slightly exceeds the EPYC’s boost clock, which helps in lightly threaded scenarios.

Benchmark results confirm the segmentation. The EPYC dominates in Cinebench multi-core tests: it scores 22096 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Ryzen does not have direct comparable Cinebench data. The Ryzen’s PassMark single-thread score of 1592 is notable for its class, but the EPYC’s Cinebench R23 single-core score of 3119 shows it is not far behind despite its server focus.

Pick the EPYC 7551 if your workload scales with core count and memory bandwidth. Pick the Ryzen 3 3100U if you need an integrated, low-power solution for a mobile chassis. The average benchmark scores are close — 6391 vs 6247 — but the underlying architecture differences make them incomparable for real-world use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, meaning no direct test-by-test comparison exists. However, the available benchmark suites from each processor reveal distinct strengths.

The EPYC 7551 posts a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22096, a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 9280, and a Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 2227. These scores reflect its 32-core, 64-thread configuration. Against its nearest rivals, the EPYC’s average benchmark score of 6391 is 0.7% ahead of the Intel Core i9-10920X (6347), 1.2% behind the Intel Core i7-12800HE (6467), 1.8% behind the Intel Xeon D-2796TE (6510), and 2.1% behind the Intel Xeon W-2191B (6531). This places the EPYC in a competitive position among high-core-count server chips.

The Ryzen 3 3100U’s PassMark results show a different profile. Its multi-thread score is 3348, single-thread score is 1592, and integer math score is 8873. Floating-point math reaches 5854, while data compression scores 38455 and data encryption scores 1972. The Ryzen’s average benchmark score of 6247 puts it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (6231), 1.0% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7272 (6186), 1.6% behind the Intel Core i9-10920X (6347), and 1.6% ahead of the Intel Core i9-7940X (6147). This is a remarkable showing for a 2-core mobile chip, as it sits within 2% of a 32-core Threadripper in average score.

The biggest wins for the EPYC come in raw multi-threaded throughput. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 22096 is approximately 6.6 times higher than the Ryzen’s PassMark multi-thread score of 3348, though these are different benchmarks. In more direct terms, the EPYC’s 64 threads versus the Ryzen’s 2 threads creates an enormous parallel processing advantage. The EPYC’s 64 MB shared L3 cache also dwarfs the Ryzen’s 4 MB, reducing data access latency for large working sets.

The Ryzen’s wins are in efficiency and integrated capabilities. Its 15 W TDP is 12 times lower than the EPYC’s 180 W TDP. Its boost clock of 3.20 GHz exceeds the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz, giving it a slight edge in single-thread burst performance. The integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics provide functionality the EPYC cannot offer without a separate GPU. These advantages matter for mobile usage but do not compensate for the massive core-count deficit in compute-heavy server workloads.

Specification Differences

• Cores: EPYC 7551 has 32; Ryzen 3 3100U has 2.
• Threads: EPYC 7551 has 64; Ryzen 3 3100U has 2.
• Base Clock: EPYC 7551 runs at 2.00 GHz; Ryzen 3 3100U runs at 1.90 GHz.
• Boost Clock: EPYC 7551 boosts to 3.00 GHz; Ryzen 3 3100U boosts to 3.20 GHz.
• TDP: EPYC 7551 is rated at 180 W; Ryzen 3 3100U is rated at 15 W.
• Socket: EPYC 7551 uses AMD Socket SP3; Ryzen 3 3100U uses AMD Socket FP5.
• Memory Bus: EPYC 7551 supports eight-channel memory; Ryzen 3 3100U supports dual-channel memory.
• Memory Bandwidth: EPYC 7551 delivers 170.6 GB/s; Ryzen 3 3100U delivers 38.4 GB/s.
• ECC Memory: EPYC 7551 supports ECC; Ryzen 3 3100U does not.
• Integrated Graphics: EPYC 7551 has none; Ryzen 3 3100U has Radeon Vega 8.
• Market Segment: EPYC 7551 is Server/Workstation; Ryzen 3 3100U is Mobile.
• Multiplier Unlocked: EPYC 7551 is unlocked; Ryzen 3 3100U is locked.
• Release Date: EPYC 7551 launched on 2017-06-28; Ryzen 3 3100U lists a release date of 2026-05-31.
• Part Number: EPYC 7551 is PS7551BDVIHAF; Ryzen 3 3100U is YM3100C4T2OFG.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7551 belongs to the EPYC 7001 series, built on the Zen architecture with the codename Naples. It is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,800 million transistors on a 213 mm² die. The Ryzen 3 3100U belongs to the 3000 series, using the Zen+ architecture with the codename Picasso. It is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The Ryzen has a slightly smaller die but more transistors, reflecting the denser 12 nm node.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both processors use 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The EPYC, however, has 64 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Ryzen has only 4 MB of shared L3. This 16x difference in L3 capacity directly impacts multi-threaded workloads that share data across cores. The EPYC’s larger cache also compensates for its lower boost clock in server workloads where memory latency dominates.

The EPYC’s generation is listed as "EPYC (Zen (Naples))", while the Ryzen is "Ryzen 3 (Zen+ (Picasso))". The Zen+ architecture in the Ryzen typically offers minor IPC improvements over the original Zen, but the EPYC’s core count overwhelms any per-core advantage. Both processors use DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, so those platform features are identical. The EPYC’s eight-channel memory controller is a major architectural advantage for bandwidth-sensitive applications, delivering 170.6 GB/s versus the Ryzen’s 38.4 GB/s.

The EPYC’s transistor count of 4,800 million is slightly lower than the Ryzen’s 4,940 million, but the EPYC packs 32 cores into a similar die area. This is possible due to the server-oriented design with a larger L3 cache and memory controller. The Ryzen’s 2-core design with integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics uses its transistor budget for the GPU and smaller cache. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, freeing die area for compute resources. The production status for both is listed as Active, meaning both remain in production.