EPYC 7702P vs Ryzen 9 3900X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 9 3900X
2019
12 cores / 24 threads, 105 Watt
21.11
EPYC 7702P
2019
64 cores / 128 threads, 200 Watt
41.55
+96.8%

EPYC 7702P outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by an impressive 97% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking23651
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation36.7325.94
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
SeriesAMD Ryzen 9AMD EPYC
Architecture codenameMatisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)Zen 2 (2019−2020)
Release date7 July 2019 (4 years ago)7 August 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$499$4,425
Current price$381 (0.8x MSRP)$1524 (0.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 3900X has 42% better value for money than EPYC 7702P.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)64 (Tetrahexaconta-Core)
Threads24128
Base clock speed3.8 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed4.6 GHz3.35 GHz
L1 cache768 KB4 MB
L2 cache6 MB32 MB
L3 cache64 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 12 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die sizeno data192 mm2
Maximum core temperature95 °Cno data
Number of transistors19,200 million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility++
Unlocked multiplierYesYes

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P 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)105 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P. 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 7702P are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelDDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size128 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels28
Maximum memory bandwidth51.196 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 9 3900X 21.11
EPYC 7702P 41.55
+96.8%

EPYC 7702P outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 97% based on our aggregated 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%

Ryzen 9 3900X 32652
EPYC 7702P 64276
+96.9%

EPYC 7702P outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 97% 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 1694
+90.8%
EPYC 7702P 888

Ryzen 9 3900X outperforms EPYC 7702P by 91% 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%

Ryzen 9 3900X 9921
EPYC 7702P 15480
+56%

EPYC 7702P outperforms Ryzen 9 3900X by 56% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 21.11 41.55
Recency 7 July 2019 7 August 2019
Physical cores 12 64
Threads 24 128
Cost $499 $4425
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 200 Watt

The EPYC 7702P 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 7702P is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 9 3900X and EPYC 7702P, 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 9 3900X
Ryzen 9 3900X
AMD EPYC 7702P
EPYC 7702P

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.


4.7 5022 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 3900X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 32 votes

Rate EPYC 7702P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 9 3900X or EPYC 7702P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.