Ryzen Threadripper 1940X vs EPYC 7351P
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 415 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.63 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.99 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 20 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 29 July 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $750 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 28 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Multiplier | 24 | no data |
| L1 cache | 1.5 MB | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 19200 Million | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | TR4 | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 W, 170 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 8 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2017 | 29 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 14 |
| Threads | 32 | 28 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 155 Watt | 180 Watt |
EPYC 7351P has 14.3% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads, and 16.1% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 1940X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 7351P is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1940X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7351P and Ryzen Threadripper 1940X, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
