AMD EPYC 7551P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX Comparison

# AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX vs AMD EPYC 7551P

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX and AMD EPYC 7551P are both 32-core, 64-thread AMD processors, but they target entirely different markets: the Threadripper is a desktop part built on the Zen+ architecture (Colfax), while the EPYC is a server/workstation chip using the original Zen architecture (Naples). Benchmark data reveals a split personality: the EPYC 7551P dominates in Cinebench workloads across the board, while the Threadripper 2990WX wins decisively in Geekbench tests. The EPYC also posts a higher average benchmark score (7952 vs 7578) and a slightly better percentile ranking (64th vs 63rd percentile of all CPUs).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P averages 7952 across all benchmark tests, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX averages 7578. That puts the EPYC about 4.9% ahead in overall average performance, though the Threadripper sits closer to its nearest rivals in the aggregate data.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 15.8% higher than the Threadripper 2990WX’s 27370. This is the largest absolute performance gap in any Cinebench test between the two.

Q: Does the Threadripper win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the Threadripper 2990WX wins both Geekbench tests. It scores 11821 in Geekbench multi-core versus the EPYC’s 6296 (an 87.8% advantage), and 1303 in Geekbench single-core versus the EPYC’s 919 (a 41.8% advantage).

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX uses quad-channel DDR4 memory with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7551P uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory; the Threadripper does not.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 2990WX boosts up to 4.20 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7551P’s 3.00 GHz boost. The Threadripper also has a higher base clock at 3.00 GHz versus the EPYC’s 2000.00 MHz.

Q: What is the production status of both chips?

A: Both the Threadripper 2990WX and the EPYC 7551P are listed as Active in production status. The Threadripper was released on 2018-08-12, while the EPYC came out earlier on 2017-06-28.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD’s core designs. The Threadripper 2990WX is built on the Zen+ architecture with the codename Colfax, fabricated on a 12 nm process node at GlobalFoundries. The EPYC 7551P uses the original Zen architecture with the codename Naples, on a 14 nm process node, also from GlobalFoundries. This node difference means the Threadripper is a newer design, but the EPYC’s architecture is optimized for server density and power efficiency.

The die configuration also diverges significantly. The Threadripper 2990WX uses a 4x 213 mm² die setup with 19,200 million transistors total. The EPYC 7551P uses a single 213 mm² die with 4,800 million transistors. Both have the same per-core cache hierarchy: 96 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is 64 MB in both cases, but the Threadripper lists it as simply “64 MB” while the EPYC specifies “64 MB (shared).”

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 93.9 GB/s and no ECC support. The EPYC supports eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and full ECC memory support. This makes the EPYC far more suitable for memory-intensive server workloads that require error correction and high throughput.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Threadripper offers Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC is listed as Gen 3 without a specific lane count in the data. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier; the EPYC also lists multiplierUnlocked as true. The sockets are different: the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent: the EPYC 7551P wins every single Cinebench test by the same 15.8% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3276 against the Threadripper’s 2758. In R15 single-core, it’s 462 versus 389. Moving to R20, the EPYC posts 13650 multi-core and 1926 single-core, while the Threadripper manages 11495 and 1622 respectively. In R23, the EPYC reaches 32500 multi-core and 4588 single-core, with the Threadripper at 27370 and 3864. This uniformity suggests the EPYC’s architectural efficiency and higher memory bandwidth provide a consistent advantage in Cinebench’s rendering workloads.

The Geekbench results flip the script entirely. The Threadripper 2990WX wins Geekbench multi-core with a score of 11821 versus the EPYC’s 6296 — a massive 87.8% delta. In Geekbench single-core, the Threadripper scores 1303 against the EPYC’s 919, a 41.8% advantage. These Geekbench wins are likely driven by the Threadripper’s much higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) and its newer Zen+ architecture, which improves single-threaded performance and latency-sensitive workloads.

Aggregate scores tell a mixed story. The EPYC’s average benchmark score of 7952 places it in the 64th percentile of all CPUs, with its nearest rival being the Intel Core i7-13700E (7957, a -0.1% delta). The Threadripper’s average of 7578 puts it in the 63rd percentile, with the Intel Core i5-6500 (7569) as its closest competitor at a +0.1% delta. The EPYC also sits near the Intel Core i9-10980XE (7910, +0.5%) and Intel Xeon Gold 6326 (8071, -1.5%), while the Threadripper’s rivals include the AMD EPYC 7371 (7568, +0.1%) and Intel Core i5-4590 (7609, -0.4%).

Specification Differences

The core counts are identical — 32 cores and 64 threads for both — so the differences lie elsewhere. The Threadripper 2990WX has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, while the EPYC 7551P has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Threadripper’s boost advantage of 1.20 GHz is substantial and explains its Geekbench single-core lead.

Thermal design power differs: the Threadripper draws 250 W TDP, while the EPYC is rated at 180 W. The Threadripper’s higher TDP reflects its higher clock speeds, but the EPYC delivers better Cinebench performance at 70 W less. The process node also differs — 12 nm for the Threadripper versus 14 nm for the EPYC — with the newer node typically enabling better power efficiency at higher clocks.

Memory support is another key split. The Threadripper uses quad-channel DDR4 with 93.9 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC. The EPYC uses eight-channel DDR4 with 170.6 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. That’s 76.7 GB/s more memory bandwidth for the EPYC, which is critical for server workloads. The Threadripper uses Socket SP3r2, while the EPYC uses Socket SP3 — these are not interchangeable sockets.

The Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $1799. The EPYC has no launch MSRP listed in the data. Market segments also differ: the Threadripper is a Desktop part, while the EPYC is a Server/Workstation part. The Threadripper’s part number is YD299XAZUIHAF; the EPYC’s is PS755PBDVIHAF. The Threadripper’s PCIe is Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only); the EPYC’s PCIe is listed simply as Gen 3.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload type. The AMD EPYC 7551P is the superior choice for Cinebench-style rendering workloads, winning all six Cinebench tests by a consistent 15.8% margin. Its higher average benchmark score (7952 vs 7578) and better percentile ranking (64th vs 63rd) make it the stronger all-around performer in the aggregate data. The EPYC also offers eight-channel memory with ECC support and 170.6 GB/s bandwidth, which is essential for server deployments where data integrity and throughput matter.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX is the better pick for Geekbench-style workloads, particularly those that benefit from high single-thread performance. Its 4.20 GHz boost clock and Zen+ architecture deliver an 87.8% multi-core win and a 41.8% single-core win over the EPYC in Geekbench. For desktop users who need high clock speeds for gaming, latency-sensitive applications, or daily productivity tasks, the Threadripper is the more responsive part.

The EPYC’s 180 W TDP versus the Threadripper’s 250 W TDP is another point in its favor for dense server environments where power and cooling are limited. However, the Threadripper’s unlocked multiplier and desktop socket make it more flexible for enthusiast overclocking, even though the EPYC also lists an unlocked multiplier. Production status is Active for both, so neither is obsolete.

Where Each One Wins

AMD EPYC 7551P wins in:

• All Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests (multi-core and single-core), by a uniform 15.8% margin
• Average benchmark score: 7952 vs 7578
• Percentile ranking: 64th vs 63rd
• Memory bandwidth: 170.6 GB/s vs 93.9 GB/s
• Memory channels: eight-channel vs quad-channel
• ECC memory support: yes vs no
• Power efficiency: 180 W TDP vs 250 W TDP

AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX wins in:

• Geekbench multi-core: 11821 vs 6296, an 87.8% advantage
• Geekbench single-core: 1303 vs 919, a 41.8% advantage
• Boost clock: 4.20 GHz vs 3.00 GHz
• Base clock: 3.00 GHz vs 2000.00 MHz
• Process node: 12 nm vs 14 nm
• PCIe lanes: 60 lanes (CPU only) vs unspecified count

For a builder assembling a render farm or a memory-bound server, the EPYC 7551P is the data-backed choice. For a desktop workstation where Geekbench-style responsiveness and high clock speeds matter more than Cinebench throughput, the Threadripper 2990WX justifies its desktop positioning. The EPYC’s aggregate score advantage and its consistent Cinebench dominance make it the safer recommendation for pure compute performance, but the Threadripper’s massive Geekbench wins show it is far from obsolete for client-side workloads.