AMD EPYC 4545P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC 4545P are both Zen 5 server/workstation processors built on the same 4nm TSMC process, yet they target starkly different design philosophies. The data reveals a near-tie in average benchmark scores—76,513 for the Threadripper and 76,433 for the EPYC—but the distribution of wins is lopsided: the Threadripper claims 14 benchmark victories against the EPYC’s 3. This split suggests that raw aggregate performance is similar, but the underlying characteristics—core counts, memory bandwidth, and platform scope—create distinct personalities. The following analysis dissects where each chip excels, what the architectural differences imply, and which workloads should gravitate toward which processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX dominates the rendering and CPU-agnostic compute tests. In Cinebench, it wins every single iteration: R15 multi-core (4,871 vs 4,745, +2.7%), R20 multi-core (20,296 vs 19,773, +2.6%), and R23 multi-core (48,325 vs 47,079, +2.6%). Its single-core advantage is consistent but narrow, with leads of 2.7% in R15, 2.7% in R20, and 2.6% in R23. The pattern is unmistakable: for sustained multi-threaded rendering, the Threadripper is the safer bet, even though its core count is lower (12 vs 16). The EPYC’s wins are concentrated in PassMark’s math and encryption workloads. The EPYC 4545P takes integer math (218,623 vs 185,421, +15.2%), floating-point math (127,400 vs 111,566, +12.4%), and data encryption (39,033 vs 36,540, +6.4%). These are the EPYC’s only three victories, but they are substantial margins, suggesting that the EPYC’s higher core count translates directly into parallel throughput for arithmetic-heavy tasks.

The Threadripper’s wins are not just in Cinebench. It also leads in PassMark’s extended instructions (54,406 vs 45,111, +20.6%), find prime numbers (335 vs 296, +13.2%), random string sorting (84,498 vs 76,031, +11.1%), and data compression (671,963 vs 643,120, +4.5%). Its most dramatic victory is in PassMark physics, where it scores 6,118 against the EPYC’s 3,525—a 73.6% lead. This suggests that the Threadripper’s architecture handles physics simulation and similar workloads with far greater efficiency, despite having fewer physical cores. In multi-threaded PassMark, the Threadripper again edges ahead (56,854 vs 55,388, +2.6%). The overall picture is that the Threadripper is a generalist that wins most tests, while the EPYC is a specialist that wins where raw core count matters most.

Architecture Differences

Both chips share the Zen 5 architecture, the 4nm TSMC process, and the same 16,630 million transistor count with a dual-die design of 2x 70.6 mm². However, the platform implementations diverge sharply. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC 4545P uses AMD Socket AM5. This socket difference dictates memory channels: the Threadripper supports eight-channel DDR5 with a theoretical bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, whereas the EPYC is limited to dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s. That is a 4.6x bandwidth advantage for the Threadripper, which likely explains its dominance in memory-sensitive workloads like random string sorting and data compression. The cache hierarchy also differs: the Threadripper has 64 KB L1 per core, while the EPYC has 80 KB L1 per core. Both share 1 MB L2 per core and 64 MB L3 shared, so the L1 difference is a per-core detail that may affect certain access patterns.

The core counts and clock speeds are inverted in an interesting way. The EPYC has 16 cores and 32 threads, but a base clock of 3.00 GHz; the Threadripper has 12 cores and 24 threads, yet a base clock of 4.70 GHz. Both boost to 5.40 GHz. The Threadripper’s higher base clock explains its single-core wins, while the EPYC’s extra cores explain its math victories. The TDP disparity is enormous: 350W for the Threadripper versus 65W for the EPYC. This is not a performance metric, but it indicates that the Threadripper is designed for unrestricted power delivery, while the EPYC is a low-power part. The EPYC also includes integrated Radeon Graphics; the Threadripper has no integrated graphics. PCIe lanes differ significantly: the Threadripper offers 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC provides 24 Gen 5 lanes. The EPYC’s multiplier is locked, while the Threadripper’s is unlocked. Both support ECC memory and are classified as Server/Workstation parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX scores 76,513 on average, while the AMD EPYC 4545P scores 76,433, a difference of 0.1% in favor of the Threadripper.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC 4545P has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in any single benchmark between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the Threadripper scores 6,118 versus the EPYC’s 3,525, a 73.6% advantage for the Threadripper.

Q: Does the EPYC 4545P ever outperform the Threadripper PRO 9945WX?

A: Yes, in three PassMark tests: data encryption (+6.4%), floating-point math (+12.4%), and integer math (+15.2%), all favoring the EPYC.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX supports eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 4545P supports dual-channel memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use the 4nm process from TSMC, with identical transistor counts of 16,630 million and the same dual-die size of 2x 70.6 mm².

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX | AMD EPYC 4545P |

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

| Cores | 12 | 16 |

| Threads | 24 | 32 |

| Base Clock | 4.70 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 350W | 65W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Grado |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 24 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Radeon Graphics |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000000726 | 100-000001764 |

| Release Date | Not specified | 2025-05-12 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $549 |

The table highlights that the Threadripper is a high-power, high-bandwidth part with fewer cores but a much higher base clock. The EPYC is a low-power, dual-channel part with more cores and integrated graphics. The Threadripper’s launch MSRP is not available in the data; the EPYC’s launch MSRP is $549.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent, narrow Threadripper advantage. In R15 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 4,871 versus 4,745, a 2.7% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows 20,296 versus 19,773, a 2.6% lead. The R23 multi-core result is 48,325 versus 47,079, again 2.6% ahead. Single-core results are equally consistent: R15 (687 vs 669, +2.7%), R20 (2,865 vs 2,791, +2.7%), and R23 (6,822 vs 6,646, +2.6%). These margins are small but uniform, indicating a per-clock advantage for the Threadripper that scales across generations of the Cinebench test.

The PassMark results reveal a more complex story. The Threadripper wins data compression by 4.5% (671,963 vs 643,120), extended instructions by 20.6% (54,406 vs 45,111), find prime numbers by 13.2% (335 vs 296), and random string sorting by 11.1% (84,498 vs 76,031). Its physics score is the outlier: 6,118 versus 3,525, a 73.6% margin that dwarfs every other benchmark. Conversely, the EPYC’s wins are all in math-heavy PassMark tests. It leads integer math by 15.2% (218,623 vs 185,421), floating-point math by 12.4% (127,400 vs 111,566), and data encryption by 6.4% (39,033 vs 36,540). The single-thread scores are nearly identical: 4,573 versus 4,568, a 0.1% difference that is essentially a tie. The multi-thread score favors the Threadripper at 56,854 versus 55,388, a 2.6% lead.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for distinct use cases. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the choice for workloads that depend on memory bandwidth, high per-core clocks, and physics simulation. Its eight-channel memory (409.6 GB/s) versus the EPYC’s dual-channel (89.6 GB/s) is a decisive factor in its wins in data compression and random string sorting. The 73.6% physics lead suggests that simulation and similar single-core-bound-but-memory-hungry tasks will see outsized benefits. For rendering, the Threadripper’s consistent 2.6-2.7% Cinebench wins, despite having 4 fewer cores, indicate that its higher base clock (4.70 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) compensates for the core deficit. Users with sTR5 platforms, or those needing 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, have no reason to choose the EPYC.

The AMD EPYC 4545P is the specialist for pure parallel arithmetic. Its 16 cores and 32 threads deliver wins of 15.2% in integer math and 12.4% in floating-point math, making it the better pick for number-crunching applications that can use all cores. Its 6.4% encryption advantage also suits security-focused workloads. The EPYC’s 65W TDP versus the Threadripper’s 350W is a significant operational consideration, though not a performance metric. Its AM5 socket and integrated Radeon Graphics make it a more accessible, lower-power platform. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $549 (the Threadripper’s is not listed). For users who prioritize raw core count, dual-channel memory simplicity, and power efficiency, the EPYC 4545P is the data-backed choice. For everyone else, the Threadripper PRO 9945WX’s 14 wins out of 17 benchmarks make it the overall performance leader, especially where memory bandwidth and single-thread speed matter.