EPYC 7502P vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
2018
16 cores / 32 threads, 180 Watt
18.54
EPYC 7502P
2019
32 cores / 64 threads, 180 Watt
31.99
+72.5%

EPYC 7502P outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 2950X by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking317127
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.119.17
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen ThreadripperAMD EPYC
Power efficiency9.7516.82
Architecture codenameZEN+ (2018−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date6 August 2018 (6 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$899$2,300

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7502P has 13% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 2950X.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P 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 cores16 (Hexadeca-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads3264
Base clock speed3.5 GHz2.5 GHz
Boost clock speed4.4 GHz3.35 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3525
L1 cache1.5 MB2 MB
L2 cache8 MB16 MB
L3 cache32 MB128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography12 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size213 mm2192 mm2
Number of transistors9600 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplier++

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P 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)
SocketSocket TR4TR4
Power consumption (TDP)180 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
Precision Boost 2++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Quad-channelDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size2 TiB4 TiB
Max memory channels48
Maximum memory bandwidth93.867 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

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 Threadripper 2950X 18.54
EPYC 7502P 31.99
+72.5%

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 Threadripper 2950X 29456
EPYC 7502P 50818
+72.5%

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 Threadripper 2950X 1260
+30.8%
EPYC 7502P 963

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 Threadripper 2950X 8485
+8.5%
EPYC 7502P 7822

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.54 31.99
Recency 6 August 2018 7 August 2019
Physical cores 16 32
Threads 32 64
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm

EPYC 7502P has a 72.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 7502P is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 2950X in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen Threadripper 2950X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7502P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen Threadripper 2950X and EPYC 7502P, 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 Threadripper 2950X
Ryzen Threadripper 2950X
AMD EPYC 7502P
EPYC 7502P

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.


4.3 55 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 27 votes

Rate EPYC 7502P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen Threadripper 2950X or EPYC 7502P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.