Ryzen Threadripper 2950X vs EPYC Embedded 3251
Primary details
Comparing EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 317 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.14 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC Embedded | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | no data | 9.75 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | ZEN+ (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $315 | $899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC Embedded 3251 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 25 | 35 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 192 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4,800 million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC Embedded 3251 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 configuration | 1 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | TR4 | Socket TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 512 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 42.671 GB/s | 93.867 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 13 August 2018 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 16 |
| Threads | 16 | 32 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 180 Watt |
EPYC Embedded 3251 has 260% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 16.7% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC Embedded 3251 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC Embedded 3251 and Ryzen Threadripper 2950X, 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.
