Threadripper vs Epyc

Threadripper vs Epyc – Which one is Better? Just a few years ago, it seemed as if AMD was only available at the lowest prices possible. But now, they have an option for those looking for heavy-duty workstations or HPCs. So which one will serve them best?

Ryzen Threadripper Pros

With up to 64 total processing cores, Thread ripper is a phenomenal product that has been designed and engineered with professionals in mind. Its power-packed performance will ensure users can do all they need without interruption or delays. This cutting-edge technology is no less than what one would expect from AMD–a corporation that has made itself a force to be reckoned with when it comes to innovation over the past few decades.

Core Frequency – Unlike most other processors, Threadripper has a 4.3-4.5GHz boost frequency on one of its cores – which is higher than the 3.2 seen in Epyc – and this gives it an edge in tasks that are heavily multithreaded, such as Media and Entertainment workflows or video encoding jobs, but also tasks where performance can be increased through parallelization like rendering CAD models or architecture projects.

Official Windows Support – Since Epyc is mainly designed for datacenters, many compatible motherboard manufacturers don’t officially support Windows 10. This doesn’t mean you cannot run Windows on an Epyc workstation – we’ve been able to do it with our HD360A – but instead requires additional knowledge when installing necessary drivers. With Threadripper being made specifically for desktops, there are no installation problems whatsoever and all Windows-compatible drivers are installed automatically.

AMD Epyc Pros

Epyc is most often recognized as a server platform – which, due to its high number of cores and scalabilities, has been used by many people for tasks such as machine learning or scientific simulations. Some of the many benefits for these users are listed below.

RAM Density/Channels – Most single socket motherboards for an Epyc CPU will allow up to 2TB of RAM to be installed in 8 channels, which is quite different from the Threadripper CPUs which can only manage 256 GB in 4 channels. Though most people would not come close to needing that much memory space, it’s still nice to know that if they ever do require it – they’ll be able to afford it.

ECC Support – Threadripper architectures do support ECC memory, but the Threadripper X399 chipset does not. Ryzen (and Threadripper PRO) are the only AMD processors that support ECC until there is a chipset refresh available.

Scalability/Core Count – Threadripper is limited to a single socket configuration, unlike Intel’s Epyc line which has options for dual processors, yielding up to 128 cores and 256 threads as well as an increased performance via more PCI-e lanes and networking bandwidth. Threadripper may work better if you need high CPU utilization or want to do simulations.

Security – AMD’s industry-leading Infinity Guard security suite provides an extra level of encryption unavailable with Threadripper.

What about WRX80 Threadripper PRO

AMD’s new Threadripper PRO chipset is a blend of the best from both TRX40 Threadripper and Epyc. Performance-wise, it lines up closely with standard Threadripper with similar core counts and frequencies yet it also includes ECC support and greater RAM capacities as well as security features that Epyc has for extra protection.

Threadripper vs Epyc – Which Should Professionals Use?

The answer will depend on what you need your system for. For tasks such as server use, Epyc offers superior scaling and security features but may not be the best if you are looking for workstation programs due to high prices. In contrast, Threadripper has higher core speeds and supports Windows 10 – which may make it a better option for those looking for traditional applications like design or engineering software.

That said, not every professional workstation user will find Epyc over Threadripper an upgrade option. Those who need a large quantity of memory and access to more than 128 threads while running heavy applications such as Design and Simulation, Machine Learning, Weather, Research/Academia, or Computational Fluid Dynamics might find it worth the higher cost. But for those who are only handling Media & Entertainment, Architecture, Engineering & Design, or similar fields – they’ll find that Threadripper is still the better alternative given its unbeatable features.

Leave a Comment