EPYC 7F32 vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7F32 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1900X by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 932 | 630 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.56 | 3.13 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | AMD Ryzen Threadripper | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 8.18 | 7.85 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |
| Architecture codename | Zen (2017−2020) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 31 August 2017 (8 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $549 | $2,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7F32 has 22% better value for money than Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 38 | 37 |
| L1 cache | 96K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 32 MB | 32 MB (per die) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 4x 74 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 9,600 million | 15,200 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32 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 |
| Socket | SP3r2 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32. 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 Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Quad-channel | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 2 TiB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 85.33 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen Threadripper 1900X and EPYC 7F32.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 60 | 128 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.55 | 13.19 |
| Recency | 31 August 2017 | 14 April 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 180 Watt |
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 44% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F32, on the other hand, has a 38.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The AMD EPYC 7F32 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is a desktop processor while EPYC 7F32 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
