EPYC 75F3 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1940
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 51 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 5.97 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.57 |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Milan (2021−2023) |
| Release date | 29 July 2017 (7 years ago) | 12 January 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $4,860 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) |
| Threads | 28 | 64 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2.95 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 29.5 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 2 MB |
| L2 cache | 512 KB (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm+ |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 8x 81 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 33,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3 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 | 2 |
| Socket | SP3r2 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 4 TiB |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.795 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3.
| PCIe version | no data | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 128 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 July 2017 | 12 January 2021 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 32 |
| Threads | 28 | 64 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 280 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1940 has 55.6% lower power consumption.
EPYC 75F3, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, 128.6% more physical cores and 128.6% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1940 is a desktop processor while EPYC 75F3 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 1940 and EPYC 75F3, 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.
