Ryzen Threadripper 3980X vs EPYC 7551P
Primary details
Comparing EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 201 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.43 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD EPYC | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Power efficiency | 12.62 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Naples (2017−2018) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 20 June 2017 (7 years ago) | 14 November 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,100 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X 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 | 32 (Dotriaconta-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 64 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2 GHz | 4.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | 20 | 32 |
| L1 cache | 3 MB | 3 MB |
| L2 cache | 16 MB | 24 MB |
| L3 cache | 64 MB (shared) | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | no data |
| Number of transistors | 19200 Million | 19,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X 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 |
| Socket | TR4 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 280 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X. 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 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Eight-channel | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 512 GB |
| Max memory channels | 8 | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 170.671 GB/s | 102.403 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 128 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2017 | 14 November 2019 |
| Physical cores | 32 | 48 |
| Threads | 64 | 96 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 280 Watt |
EPYC 7551P has 55.6% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 3980X, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, 50% more physical cores and 50% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that EPYC 7551P is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 3980X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7551P and Ryzen Threadripper 3980X, 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.
