EPYC 7302P vs Ryzen 5 1600X

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600X
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
8.53
EPYC 7302P
2019
16 cores / 32 threads, 155 Watt
21.38
+151%

EPYC 7302P outperforms Ryzen 5 1600X by a whopping 151% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking911266
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.3913.13
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.1912.58
Architecture codenameZen (2017−2020)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date16 March 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$249$825

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7302P has 199% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1600X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads1232
Base clock speed3.6 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3630
L1 cache576 KB1 MB
L2 cache3 MB8 MB
L3 cache16 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size213 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors4800 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P 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)
SocketAM4TR4
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt155 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P. 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 Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes24no 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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Ryzen 5 1600X 8.53
EPYC 7302P 21.38
+151%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600X 13057
EPYC 7302P 32717
+151%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600X 1135
EPYC 7302P 1192
+5%

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.

Ryzen 5 1600X 4754
EPYC 7302P 8185
+72.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.53 21.38
Recency 16 March 2017 7 August 2019
Physical cores 6 16
Threads 12 32
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 155 Watt

Ryzen 5 1600X has 63.2% lower power consumption.

EPYC 7302P, on the other hand, has a 150.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, 166.7% more physical cores and 166.7% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7302P is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 1600X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 5 1600X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7302P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600X and EPYC 7302P, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Ryzen 5 1600X
Ryzen 5 1600X
AMD EPYC 7302P
EPYC 7302P

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.

Community ratings

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


4.2 890 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 27 votes

Rate EPYC 7302P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600X or EPYC 7302P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.