AMD EPYC 4465P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX and the AMD EPYC 4465P represent two distinct philosophies for workstation computing: one is a 16-core Zen 3 giant built for raw multi-threaded throughput, while the other is a 12-core Zen 5 newcomer with a massive clock speed advantage. Benchmark data reveals a surprisingly close contest, with the EPYC 4465P taking 12 of 17 head-to-head tests, yet the Threadripper PRO 5955WX securing decisive victories in specific memory-heavy and encryption workloads. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—67,868 for the Threadripper versus 66,925 for the EPYC—placing both in the 93rd and 94th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively. This is a fight decided by workload type, not overall superiority, and the numbers tell a compelling story of architectural trade-offs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the consistency of the EPYC 4465P’s wins across Cinebench. In every single Cinebench test—R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core—the EPYC 4465P wins by exactly 2.5%. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 42,918 against the Threadripper’s 41,837. This uniform margin is remarkable because the Threadripper has 16 cores versus the EPYC’s 12, yet the EPYC’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz against 4.50 GHz appears to compensate entirely. The single-core gap is even more telling: in Cinebench R23 single-core, the EPYC scores 6,059 versus 5,906, and in PassMark single-thread, the EPYC wins by a massive 27.3% (4,575 vs 3,324). The data strongly suggests that for lightly-threaded tasks, the EPYC’s Zen 5 architecture and clock speed advantage are overwhelming.

However, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX fights back hard in specific workloads. Its biggest win is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 42,524 against the EPYC’s 32,184—a 32.1% advantage. Data compression also favors the Threadripper heavily: 690,994 versus 577,210, a 19.7% lead. These are not minor edges; they indicate a fundamental difference in how the two CPUs handle memory-intensive operations. The Threadripper also wins PassMark integer math by 6.1% (185,168 vs 174,551), extended instructions by 9.5% (46,952 vs 42,867), and random string sorting by 3.4% (69,879 vs 67,597). The Threadripper’s eight-channel DDR4 memory bus, with 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the EPYC’s dual-channel DDR5 at 89.6 GB/s, is the likely culprit behind these wins.

The remaining benchmarks show a mixed bag. The EPYC wins PassMark physics by 20.1% (3,647 vs 2,913) and find prime numbers by 26.6% (338 vs 248), suggesting that its per-core efficiency is superior for certain algorithmic tasks. The EPYC also edges out the Threadripper in floating-point math (105,833 vs 104,377, a 1.4% margin) and the overall PassMark multithread score (49,871 vs 49,220, a 1.3% margin). Interestingly, the Threadripper’s average benchmark score of 67,868 is actually slightly higher than the EPYC’s 66,925, despite losing more tests, because its wins are often large while its losses are narrow.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture for use-case selection. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the champion of data security and compression workloads. Its 32.1% lead in encryption and 19.7% lead in compression make it the obvious choice for tasks involving database encryption, file archiving, or secure data processing. The 6.1% win in integer math also suggests strength in general computational tasks that rely on whole-number operations, such as financial modeling or certain scientific simulations. The Threadripper’s 94th percentile ranking versus the EPYC’s 93rd, combined with its higher average score, indicates it retains a slight overall edge in aggregate performance.

The AMD EPYC 4465P is the clear winner for single-threaded and latency-sensitive applications. Its 27.3% advantage in PassMark single-thread performance and 2.5% win across all Cinebench tests make it superior for code compilation, spreadsheet work, or any software that relies heavily on a few fast cores. The 20.1% win in physics simulation and 26.6% win in prime number finding suggest strong performance in scientific computing and cryptography, despite losing the encryption test. The EPYC’s 12-core, 24-thread configuration also delivers wins in floating-point math and overall multithreaded throughput, making it a versatile choice for general workstation use where single-core responsiveness matters more than raw memory bandwidth.

The architecture differences explain these splits. The Threadripper’s 16 cores and 32 threads give it a raw computational advantage that manifests in parallel workloads, but its Zen 3 architecture and lower 4.00 GHz base clock limit its per-core speed. The EPYC’s Zen 5 architecture, with a 5.40 GHz boost clock and 4 nm process node, delivers vastly superior single-core performance. The EPYC also benefits from larger L1 cache (80 KB per core vs 64 KB) and L2 cache (1 MB per core vs 512 KB), which likely contribute to its wins in physics and prime number tests.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different foundations. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 4x 81 mm² and 16,600 million transistors. The EPYC 4465P uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 2x 70.6 mm² and 16,630 million transistors. The process shrink from 7 nm to 4 nm is critical, enabling higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which helps explain the EPYC’s 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the Threadripper’s 4.50 GHz.

Memory support is where the two diverge most sharply. The Threadripper supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, providing only 89.6 GB/s. This massive bandwidth difference—over 2.3x in favor of the Threadripper—directly correlates with its wins in data compression and encryption. The EPYC compensates with faster per-core memory access and a more modern memory standard, but it cannot match the sheer throughput of eight channels.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Threadripper has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, with 64 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC has larger per-core caches (80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2) but the same 64 MB of L3 cache, which is shared. The EPYC’s larger per-core caches likely contribute to its single-threaded performance, while the Threadripper’s identical L3 size with more cores means less L3 per core. PCIe connectivity is another major differentiator: the Threadripper offers 128 Gen 4 lanes, while the EPYC offers only 24 Gen 5 lanes. This makes the Threadripper far more suitable for multi-GPU or high-expansion workstations, despite the EPYC’s newer PCIe standard.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD EPYC 4465P has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Why does the EPYC 4465P win most Cinebench tests despite having fewer cores?

A: The EPYC 4465P has a significantly higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 4.50 GHz, and its Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process delivers superior per-core performance. This allows it to overcome the Threadripper’s 33% core count advantage in these tests.

Q: Which CPU is better for data encryption?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX is far better, scoring 42,524 versus 32,184 in PassMark data encryption, a 32.1% advantage. This is likely due to its eight-channel DDR4 memory bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX has 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth over an eight-channel DDR4 bus, while the EPYC 4465P has 89.6 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR5 bus.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The EPYC 4465P includes Radeon Graphics, while the Threadripper PRO 5955WX has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX has an average benchmark score of 67,868, which is 0.1% higher than the EPYC 4465P’s 66,925. Both are within 0.1% of their nearest rivals in the database.

The Verdict

The data suggests that the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the more balanced choice for memory-heavy workstation tasks, particularly those involving large datasets, encryption, or compression. Its 32.1% lead in encryption and 19.7% lead in compression are decisive, and its 94th percentile ranking and higher average score indicate it remains a top-tier performer. The eight-channel memory system is a clear advantage that the EPYC cannot offset with its newer architecture. For users who need to move massive amounts of data or secure it, the Threadripper is the data-backed winner.

The AMD EPYC 4465P is the superior choice for general-purpose workstation use where single-threaded performance and responsiveness are paramount. Its 27.3% lead in single-threaded PassMark and consistent 2.5% wins across all Cinebench tests make it ideal for software development, office productivity, and scientific computing that relies on fast individual cores. The 20.1% win in physics and 26.6% win in prime number finding further reinforce its per-core efficiency. The EPYC’s 93rd percentile ranking is nearly identical to the Threadripper’s, but it achieves this with fewer cores and a much lower 65W TDP versus 280W, making it a more efficient option.

Choosing between them comes down to the specific workload. If the priority is encryption, compression, or high-bandwidth memory operations, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX’s wins are too large to ignore. If the priority is a responsive, fast single-core experience with the ability to handle multithreaded tasks competently, the EPYC 4465P’s consistent wins across Cinebench and physics tests make it the practical pick. Neither CPU dominates the other across the board; the data shows a clear division of labor based on architectural strengths.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX | AMD EPYC 4465P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 12 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 65 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket WRX8 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 5 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 4 nm |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 2x 70.6 mm² |

| Transistors | 16,600 million | 16,630 million |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 24 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Graphics |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $399 |