Ryzen Threadripper 2950X vs EPYC 7551P

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7551P
2017
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
23.81
+29.4%
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
2018
16 cores / 32 threads, 180 Watt
18.40

EPYC 7551P outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2950X by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking228343
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.958.09
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
SeriesAMD EPYCAMD Ryzen Threadripper
Power efficiency12.609.74
DesignerAMDAMD
Architecture codenameNaples (2017−2018)ZEN+ (2018−2019)
Release date29 June 2017 (7 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,100$899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X has 105% better value for money than EPYC 7551P.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 cores32 (Dotriaconta-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads6432
Base clock speed2 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHz4.4 GHz
Bus rateno data4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2035
L1 cache96K (per core)96K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache64 MB (shared)32 MB
Chip lithography14 nm12 nm
Die size192 mm2213 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketTR4Socket TR4
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR4 Quad-channel
Maximum memory size2 TiB2 TiB
Max memory channels84
Maximum memory bandwidth170.671 GB/s93.867 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes128no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating.

EPYC 7551P 23.81
+29.4%
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 18.40

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

EPYC 7551P 38198
+29.4%
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 29522

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

EPYC 7551P 919
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 1252
+36.2%

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

EPYC 7551P 6296
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X 8458
+34.3%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.81 18.40
Recency 29 June 2017 13 August 2018
Physical cores 32 16
Threads 64 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm

EPYC 7551P has a 29.4% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.

The AMD EPYC 7551P is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X in performance tests.

Be aware that EPYC 7551P is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7551P
EPYC 7551P
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 81 vote

Rate EPYC 7551P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 59 votes

Rate Ryzen Threadripper 2950X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.