AMD EPYC 7F32 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X Comparison

AMD EPYC 7F32 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X occupy very different positions in the AMD lineup, yet their benchmark results are remarkably close. The EPYC 7F32 is a server processor built on the Zen 2 architecture, while the Threadripper 1920X is a desktop enthusiast part based on the original Zen design. Across six Cinebench tests, the EPYC 7F32 wins every single one, but the margins are extremely narrow, ranging from 0.3% to 0.4%. This makes the comparison less about raw performance dominance and more about platform characteristics and intended workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7F32 wins in every recorded benchmark in this database. It takes the Cinebench R15 multi-core test with a score of 1987 against 1979 for the Threadripper 1920X, a lead of 0.4%. The single-core R15 result is 280 versus 279, again a 0.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20, the EPYC scores 8281 multi-core and 1168 single-core, while the Threadripper manages 8248 and 1164, with the lead at 0.4% and 0.3% respectively. The R23 multi-core result is 19718 for the EPYC against 19640 for the Threadripper, and single-core is 2783 versus 2772, both 0.4% ahead.

The Threadripper 1920X does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks, but it does have additional data in the Geekbench suite that the EPYC 7F32 does not have recorded. The Threadripper scores 7178 in Geekbench multi-core and 1185 in single-core. Since the EPYC has no Geekbench entry, the Threadripper effectively holds the only recorded result in that test category.

The use-case split is clear from the architecture and market positioning. The EPYC 7F32 is aimed at server and workstation deployments, with eight cores, sixteen threads, and support for eight-channel DDR4 memory. The Threadripper 1920X is a desktop part with twelve cores, twenty-four threads, and quad-channel memory support. For workloads that stress memory bandwidth, such as large data sets or virtualized environments, the EPYC platform offers a much wider memory path. For desktop applications that rely on higher core counts and unlocked multipliers, the Threadripper provides flexibility with overclocking support.

The benchmark data shows that in pure Cinebench rendering tasks, the two processors are nearly identical. The EPYC wins, but the margin is less than half a percent in every case. This suggests that the EPYC 7F32 has a slight efficiency edge per clock, likely due to the Zen 2 architecture. The Threadripper, with more cores, closes the gap in multi-threaded workloads but cannot fully overcome the architectural advantage.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7F32 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome. It uses a 7 nm process node manufactured by TSMC, with 15,200 million transistors spread across four dies, each measuring 74 mm². The Threadripper 1920X uses the original Zen architecture with the codename Whitehaven. It is built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 9,600 million transistors across two dies, each 213 mm². The process node difference is significant: 7 nm versus 14 nm directly impacts power efficiency and transistor density.

Cache configuration differs substantially. The EPYC 7F32 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die, with a total L3 of 128 MB. The Threadripper 1920X has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 total. The EPYC’s larger total L3 cache, 128 MB versus 32 MB, is a major architectural difference. This larger cache can hold more working data, reducing memory latency in certain server workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 7F32 supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Threadripper 1920X supports DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC also supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the Threadripper has Gen 3 with 60 lanes. This makes the EPYC far more suitable for storage arrays and GPU-heavy server configurations.

The socket is another point of separation. The EPYC 7F32 uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper 1920X uses SP3r2. They are not physically compatible, despite the similar naming. The EPYC is a server part, with a production status of active and a release date of April 2020. The Threadripper was released in August 2017 and is also still in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the EPYC 7F32 wins all six. The largest margin is 0.4%, seen in R15 multi-core, R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The only smaller margin is R20 single-core, where the EPYC leads by 0.3%. These are extremely tight results, indicating that the two processors deliver nearly identical performance in this benchmark suite.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 1987 and the Threadripper scores 1979. The EPYC leads by 8 points, which is 0.4%. In single-core R15, the EPYC scores 280 and the Threadripper scores 279, a one-point difference. The R20 multi-core test shows 8281 versus 8248, a 33-point gap. Single-core R20 is 1168 versus 1164, a four-point gap. R23 multi-core is 19718 versus 19640, a 78-point difference, and R23 single-core is 2783 versus 2772, an 11-point gap.

The pattern is consistent: the EPYC wins by a small but repeatable margin. This suggests that the Zen 2 architecture provides a modest instructions-per-clock advantage over the original Zen architecture. The Threadripper’s higher core count (12 versus 8) and thread count (24 versus 16) does not translate into a multi-core win, likely because the EPYC’s higher base clock of 3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, combined with the newer architecture, compensates for the core deficit. The boost clocks are closer: the EPYC boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Threadripper boosts to 4.00 GHz, yet the EPYC still wins.

The average benchmark score for the EPYC 7F32 is 5703, and its percentile ranking is 61st among all CPUs. The Threadripper 1920X has an average score of 5306 and ranks in the 60th percentile. The EPYC’s nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7351 with an average score of 5710 and a delta of -0.1%, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2920X at 5730 with a delta of -0.5%. The Threadripper 1920X’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i9-9900X at 5301 with a delta of 0.1%, and the AMD EPYC 7281 at 5315 with a delta of -0.2%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F32 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has a base clock of 3.50 GHz. The EPYC is 0.20 GHz higher.

Q: Does the EPYC 7F32 support more memory channels than the Threadripper 1920X?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7F32 supports eight-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Threadripper 1920X supports quad-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s.

Q: What is the total L3 cache of the EPYC 7F32?

A: The EPYC 7F32 has a total L3 cache of 128 MB, distributed as 32 MB per die across four dies. The Threadripper 1920X has a total L3 cache of 32 MB.

Q: Which processor has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The AMD EPYC 7F32 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: In the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, what is the score difference?

A: The EPYC 7F32 scores 19718, and the Threadripper 1920X scores 19640. The EPYC leads by 78 points, which is a 0.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Threadripper 1920X support ECC memory?

A: No. The Threadripper 1920X does not support ECC memory. The EPYC 7F32 does support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The EPYC 7F32 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Threadripper 1920X has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC’s base clock is 3.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, but the Threadripper’s boost clock is higher at 4.00 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. Both have a TDP of 180 watts.

The socket is different: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Threadripper uses AMD Socket SP3r2. The architecture is Zen 2 with the Rome codename for the EPYC, while the Threadripper uses the original Zen architecture with the codename Whitehaven. The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC, manufactured by TSMC, and 14 nm for the Threadripper, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is 15,200 million for the EPYC and 9,600 million for the Threadripper. The die size is 4x 74 mm² for the EPYC and 2x 213 mm² for the Threadripper.

Cache differs: the EPYC has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 per die with a total of 128 MB. The Threadripper has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 32 MB of L3 total. Memory support is eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s for the EPYC, and quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s for the Threadripper. ECC memory is supported on the EPYC but not on the Threadripper. PCIe is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC, and Gen 3 with 60 lanes for the Threadripper.

The market segment is Server/Workstation for the EPYC and Desktop for the Threadripper. The release dates are April 2020 for the EPYC and August 2017 for the Threadripper. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $2100, while the Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $799. The EPYC does not have an unlocked multiplier, while the Threadripper does. The part numbers are 100-000000139 for the EPYC and YD192XA8UC9AE for the Threadripper. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 5703, and the Threadripper’s is 5306. The EPYC ranks in the 61st percentile, and the Threadripper ranks in the 60th percentile.