AMD EPYC 7F32 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7F32 across all six Cinebench tests. In multi-core workloads, the EPYC 7F32 posts a Cinebench R15 score of 1987 against 1890 for the Ryzen Threadripper 1920, a 5.1% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar margin, with the EPYC 7F32 scoring 8281 compared to 7877, again a 5.1% lead. The gap persists in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the EPYC 7F32 records 19718 versus 18756 for the Threadripper, also 5.1% higher.

Single-core results tell the same story, though with slightly more variation. The EPYC 7F32 leads the Threadripper 1920 by 5.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core (280 versus 266), while the R20 and R23 single-core tests both show a 5.1% margin (1168 versus 1111, and 2783 versus 2647, respectively). This consistency across all six tests indicates a systematic performance edge rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. The EPYC 7F32 holds an average score of 5703, placing it at the 61st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Threadripper 1920 averages 5425, at the 60th percentile. Interestingly, the EPYC 7F32's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7351 (average score 5710, 0.1% lower) and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X (average score 5730, 0.5% lower), while the Intel Core i9-7920X sits 0.5% behind and the Intel Xeon W-2175 trails by 1.2%. The Threadripper 1920's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon W-1290P (0.3% lower), the AMD EPYC 7351P (0.8% lower), and the Intel Core i9-13900TE and Core i9-10900KF, which are 1.5% and 2.1% higher, respectively.

The data indicates that the EPYC 7F32's wins are not marginal in context. A 5.1% multi-core advantage over a 12-core part, achieved with fewer cores, points to a substantial per-core efficiency difference. The single-core margins, ranging from 5.1% to 5.3%, further confirm that the EPYC 7F32's architectural advantages translate directly into measurable performance gains across every benchmark in the dataset.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design generations. The AMD EPYC 7F32 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Rome codename, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It integrates 15,200 million transistors across a die configuration of 4x 74 mm². In contrast, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 uses the original Zen architecture with the Whitehaven codename, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 9,600 million transistors spread over 2x 213 mm² dies.

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 7F32 offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Threadripper 1920 provides 12 cores and 24 threads. Despite having 50% more cores, the Threadripper cannot overcome the EPYC 7F32's per-core performance advantage in any benchmark. The EPYC 7F32's base clock of 3.70 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz both exceed the Threadripper's 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The EPYC 7F32 features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, totaling 128 MB of L3. The Threadripper 1920 has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 with no total L3 figure recorded. The EPYC 7F32's larger aggregate L3 cache likely contributes to its performance advantage in cache-sensitive workloads.

Platform features separate the two as well. The EPYC 7F32 uses AMD Socket SP3, supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and includes ECC memory support. The Threadripper 1920 uses AMD Socket SP3r2, supports quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and lacks ECC support. PCIe capabilities differ markedly: the EPYC 7F32 provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper 1920 offers Gen 3 with 60 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC 7F32's memory bandwidth advantage is more than double that of the Threadripper, which can heavily influence throughput-oriented server workloads.

The production status also differs. The EPYC 7F32 remains active, while the Threadripper 1920 is end-of-life. The EPYC 7F32 has a locked multiplier, whereas the Threadripper 1920 has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 7F32 carries the part number 100-000000139, and the Threadripper 1920 is YD1920A9UC9AE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 scores 2783 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 5.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920's 2647.

Q: How does the multi-core performance compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The EPYC 7F32 scores 8281 in Cinebench R20 multi-core versus 7877 for the Threadripper 1920, a 5.1% advantage for the EPYC 7F32.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Threadripper 1920 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The EPYC 7F32 supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper 1920 does not.

Q: Which socket does each processor use?

A: The EPYC 7F32 uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Threadripper 1920 uses AMD Socket SP3r2.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 7F32 provides 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the Threadripper 1920 provides 85.3 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR4 bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 7F32 has an average benchmark score of 5703, compared to 5425 for the Threadripper 1920.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7F32 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 |

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

| Cores | 8 | 12 |

| Threads | 16 | 24 |

| Base clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 140 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket SP3r2 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen |

| Codename | Rome | Zen (Whitehaven) |

| Process node | 7 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 15,200 million | 9,600 million |

| Die size | 4x 74 mm² | 2x 213 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 32 MB per die | 32 MB |

| Total L3 | 128 MB | Not recorded |

| Memory bus | Eight-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 85.3 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 60 lanes (CPU only) |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part number | 100-000000139 | YD1920A9UC9AE |

| Release date | April 13, 2020 | Not recorded |

| Launch MSRP | $2100 | Not recorded |

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7F32 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split falls along platform features rather than raw performance. The EPYC 7F32's eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth make it the appropriate choice for memory-intensive server and workstation workloads where large data sets must move quickly. Its ECC memory support and Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes further position it for reliability-critical and high-throughput environments. The active production status also means continued availability.

The Threadripper 1920, despite losing all benchmark comparisons, still holds advantages in specific areas. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide more parallel hardware, which could be relevant in workloads that scale with thread count, even if the recorded Cinebench results do not reflect an advantage. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which the EPYC 7F32 does not permit. The lower 140 W TDP means less power draw under load. The quad-channel memory bus is narrower but sufficient for many desktop applications. As a desktop part, it targets a different platform ecosystem than the server-oriented EPYC 7F32.

The benchmark data shows the EPYC 7F32 ahead by 5.1% in all multi-core tests despite having 4 fewer cores and 8 fewer threads. This indicates that the Zen 2 architecture's efficiency, combined with higher clock speeds and more cache, overcomes the Threadripper's core count advantage. The Threadripper 1920's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-10900KF, which scores 2.1% higher on average, suggesting that its competitive position is stronger against other desktop parts than against the EPYC 7F32.

The Verdict

The recorded data leads to a clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7F32 outperforms the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 in every measured benchmark. The EPYC 7F32 leads by 5.1% in all multi-core tests and by 5.1% to 5.3% in single-core tests. Its higher average benchmark score of 5703 versus 5425 places it at the 61st percentile versus the Threadripper's 60th.

For server and workstation users, the EPYC 7F32 is the stronger choice based on performance alone. Its eight-channel memory, ECC support, and Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes add platform-level capabilities that the Threadripper 1920 cannot match. The active production status and the stated launch MSRP of $2100 provide reference points for procurement decisions.

For desktop users who value overclocking, the Threadripper 1920's unlocked multiplier is a distinguishing feature. Its 12 cores and 24 threads offer more raw parallel resources, and its 140 W TDP is lower. However, the benchmark data shows no workload in the dataset where the Threadripper wins, so any decision to choose it must rest on platform preferences or overclocking potential rather than recorded performance.

The EPYC 7F32's 5.1% performance lead across all six Cinebench tests, achieved with fewer cores, demonstrates the efficiency gains of the Zen 2 architecture over the original Zen design. The Threadripper 1920, now end-of-life, remains a viable desktop processor with competitive standing against some Intel parts, but it cannot match the EPYC 7F32 in any recorded metric.