EPYC 7642 vs Ryzen 9 3900X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7642 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 238 | 78 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 33.38 | 35.18 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 9 | AMD EPYC |
| Architecture codename | Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020) | Zen 2 (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 7 July 2019 (4 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $4,775 |
| Current price | $403 (0.8x MSRP) | $947 (0.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7642 has 5% better value for money than Ryzen 9 3900X.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 48 (Octatetraconta-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 96 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 64 MB | 256 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 19,200 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | Yes | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642 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) | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 225 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642. 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 9 3900X and EPYC 7642 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 128 GB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | 204.763 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.
EPYC 7642 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
EPYC 7642 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 78% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms EPYC 7642 by 34% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
EPYC 7642 outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 3% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.11 | 37.66 |
| Recency | 7 July 2019 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 48 |
| Threads | 24 | 96 |
| Cost | $499 | $4775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 225 Watt |
The EPYC 7642 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 9 3900X in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 9 3900X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7642 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7642, 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.
