
EPYC 7203P
Popular choices:

Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
EPYC 7203P
2023Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 32 MB).
- ✅Draws 120W instead of 180W, a 60W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (22,017 vs 22,077).
Ryzen Threadripper 1950
2017Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while EPYC 7203P mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌50% higher power demand at 180W vs 120W.
EPYC 7203P
2023Ryzen Threadripper 1950
2017Why buy it
- ✅+100% larger total L3 cache (64 MB vs 32 MB).
- ✅Draws 120W instead of 180W, a 60W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +6.5% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (64 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Ryzen Threadripper 1950 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Lower PassMark (22,017 vs 22,077).
Trade-offs
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (32 MB vs 64 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $999 MSRP, while EPYC 7203P mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌50% higher power demand at 180W vs 120W.
Quick Answers
So, is Ryzen Threadripper 1950 better than EPYC 7203P?
Which one is better for gaming?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 154 FPS | 173 FPS |
| medium | 126 FPS | 153 FPS |
| high | 106 FPS | 124 FPS |
| ultra | 86 FPS | 99 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 140 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 112 FPS | 117 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 92 FPS |
| ultra | 71 FPS | 74 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 67 FPS | 65 FPS |
| medium | 57 FPS | 59 FPS |
| high | 44 FPS | 46 FPS |
| ultra | 36 FPS | 36 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 393 FPS | 336 FPS |
| medium | 349 FPS | 304 FPS |
| high | 287 FPS | 261 FPS |
| ultra | 229 FPS | 210 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 332 FPS | 287 FPS |
| medium | 300 FPS | 264 FPS |
| high | 254 FPS | 228 FPS |
| ultra | 195 FPS | 182 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 205 FPS | 184 FPS |
| medium | 188 FPS | 169 FPS |
| high | 160 FPS | 147 FPS |
| ultra | 129 FPS | 115 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 550 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 525 FPS | 505 FPS |
| high | 468 FPS | 458 FPS |
| ultra | 411 FPS | 407 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 498 FPS | 531 FPS |
| medium | 405 FPS | 439 FPS |
| high | 355 FPS | 385 FPS |
| ultra | 310 FPS | 341 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 361 FPS | 401 FPS |
| medium | 282 FPS | 318 FPS |
| high | 241 FPS | 281 FPS |
| ultra | 195 FPS | 234 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 550 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 550 FPS | 552 FPS |
| high | 550 FPS | 552 FPS |
| ultra | 550 FPS | 487 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 550 FPS | 552 FPS |
| medium | 550 FPS | 535 FPS |
| high | 521 FPS | 462 FPS |
| ultra | 447 FPS | 391 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 498 FPS | 416 FPS |
| medium | 445 FPS | 382 FPS |
| high | 390 FPS | 343 FPS |
| ultra | 338 FPS | 295 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 7203P and Ryzen Threadripper 1950

EPYC 7203P
EPYC 7203P
The EPYC 7203P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 5 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Base frequency is 2.8 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 64 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 120 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 22,017 points. Launch price was $348.


Ryzen Threadripper 1950
Ryzen Threadripper 1950
The Ryzen Threadripper 1950 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 29 July 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Zen (2017−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 3.2 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 32 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: SP3r2. Thermal design power (TDP): 180 Watt. Memory support: DDR4 Quad-channel. Passmark benchmark score: 22,077 points. Launch price was $299.
Processing Power
The EPYC 7203P packs 8 cores / 16 threads, while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 has 8 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the EPYC 7203P versus 3.2 GHz on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 — a 6.1% clock advantage for the EPYC 7203P (base: 2.8 GHz vs 3.2 GHz). The EPYC 7203P uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses Zen (2017−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 7203P scores 22,017 against the Ryzen Threadripper 1950's 22,077 — a 0.3% lead for the Ryzen Threadripper 1950. L3 cache: 64 MB (total) on the EPYC 7203P vs 32 MB on the Ryzen Threadripper 1950.
| Feature | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 8 / 16 | 16 / 32+100% |
| Boost Clock | 3.4 GHz+6% | 3.2 GHz |
| Base Clock | 2.8 GHz | 3.2 GHz+14% |
| L3 Cache | 64 MB (total)+100% | 32 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 kB (per core) | 512 kB (per core) |
| Process | 7 nm-50% | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Milan (2021−2023) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| PassMark | 22,017 | 22,077 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 18,780 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,961 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 10,100 |
Memory & Platform
The EPYC 7203P uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Ryzen Threadripper 1950 uses SP3r2 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | SP3 | SP3r2 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 4.0 | PCIe 4.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR4-2666 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 128 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 4 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 64 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (EPYC 7203P) / AMD-V (Ryzen Threadripper 1950). Primary use case: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 targets Workstation. Direct competitor: Ryzen Threadripper 1950 rivals Core i9-7960X.
| Feature | EPYC 7203P | Ryzen Threadripper 1950 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Workstation |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












