AMD EPYC 4565P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX Comparison

Both the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX and the AMD EPYC 4565P are 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 processors built on TSMC's 4 nm node, but they target different corners of the AMD ecosystem. The Threadripper PRO is a desktop-class powerhouse on Socket sTR5 with an eight-channel memory bus and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the EPYC 4565P is a server/workstation chip on Socket AM5 with dual-channel memory and 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Despite sharing core counts and architecture, benchmark results show a clear split: the Threadripper dominates in most compute tasks, while the EPYC counterattacks in specific workloads like encryption, integer math, and raw single-thread scores. The data also shows the Threadripper sits at the 97th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 101041, while the EPYC reaches the 96th percentile with an average score of 95764.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, and its victories are often decisive. In Cinebench tests, the margin is remarkably consistent: it leads the EPYC 4565P by 9.3% in both Cinebench R15 multi-core (5996 vs 5484) and single-core (846 vs 774). That same 9.4% advantage carries through Cinebench R20 multi-core (24987 vs 22850), R20 single-core (3527 vs 3225), R23 multi-core (59494 vs 54405), and R23 single-core (8399 vs 7680). These results indicate that the Threadripper's higher 4.50 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock give it a structural edge over the EPYC's 4.30 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost in rendering workloads, despite the EPYC's higher peak frequency.

The biggest single win for the Threadripper comes in PassMark physics, where it scores 4156 against the EPYC's 2976 — a 39.7% gap. This is a massive margin that suggests the Threadripper's memory bandwidth (409.6 GB/s vs 89.6 GB/s) plays a critical role in physics simulations. Random string sorting also favors the Threadripper heavily, with a 22.7% lead (99813 vs 81318). Extended instructions show an 18.7% advantage (76363 vs 64345), and prime number finding comes in at 14.6% (337 vs 294). Floating-point math is closer, with the Threadripper ahead by just 2.8% (156215 vs 152003), and data compression shows a 7% edge (920954 vs 860786). Multithread performance leans Threadripper by 5.6% (67035 vs 63474).

The EPYC 4565P wins four benchmarks, and two of them are notable. PassMark data encryption shows the EPYC ahead by 8% (48268 vs 44389), which is a meaningful reversal given the Threadripper's broader lead. Integer math also goes to the EPYC, with a 5.8% advantage (250683 vs 236120). In PassMark single-thread tests, the EPYC scores 4712 versus the Threadripper's 4530, a 3.9% win that aligns with its higher 5.70 GHz boost clock. The remaining win is a duplicate of the single-thread test (also 4712 vs 4530), so the EPYC's actual distinct victories are three: encryption, integer math, and single-thread.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9955WX is the clear choice for compute-heavy, memory-sensitive workloads. Its 39.7% lead in physics and 22.7% lead in random string sorting point to applications that benefit from eight-channel memory bandwidth and large data movement. The 18.7% edge in extended instructions suggests strong performance in SIMD-heavy code, and the 14.6% advantage in prime number finding indicates solid raw arithmetic throughput. The consistent 9.3-9.4% lead across all Cinebench versions, both multi-core and single-core, makes it the superior processor for rendering and 3D modeling tasks. Its 97th percentile ranking, alongside rivals like the AMD EPYC 7513 (within 1.2%) and AMD EPYC 8324P (within 2.2%), places it firmly in high-end workstation territory.

The EPYC 4565P wins where the Threadripper stumbles. Its 8% lead in data encryption is the most significant, suggesting that cryptographic workloads prefer its architecture or memory layout. The 5.8% win in integer math is another area where the EPYC pulls ahead, which could matter for database or financial applications that rely on integer operations. The 3.9% single-thread advantage, driven by the 5.70 GHz boost clock, makes it better for lightly-threaded tasks that depend on peak frequency. However, the EPYC's 96th percentile ranking places it just behind the Threadripper overall, with rivals like the AMD EPYC 9175F (within 0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945 (within 0.3%) showing how tight the competition is at this level.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: pick the Threadripper PRO 9955WX for maximum multi-core throughput and memory bandwidth, and choose the EPYC 4565P for specific single-thread or encryption-heavy workloads. The Threadripper's 13-4 win record in head-to-head benchmarks is decisive, and its wins are often large — the 39.7% physics gap and 22.7% string sorting gap are not marginal. For anyone running Cinebench-style rendering, physics simulations, or memory-intensive data processing, the Threadripper is the stronger option. Its launch MSRP is $1649.

The EPYC 4565P, with a launch MSRP of $589, offers a lower-cost entry point into Zen 5 with 16 cores, and its dual-channel memory (89.6 GB/s) is sufficient for many server tasks. But the benchmark data shows it trails in most categories. If your workload revolves around encryption, integer math, or single-threaded performance, the EPYC's 8% encryption lead and 5.8% integer lead make it a legitimate alternative. Otherwise, the Threadripper's overall dominance — 97th percentile vs 96th — makes it the default recommendation for raw performance. The EPYC wins where it wins, but the Threadripper wins where it matters most.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have exactly 16 cores and 32 threads. There is no difference in core count.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9955WX scores 59494 versus the EPYC 4565P's 54405, a 9.4% advantage.

Q: Does the EPYC ever beat the Threadripper?

A: Yes, in four benchmarks: PassMark data encryption (48268 vs 44389, 8% lead), integer math (250683 vs 236120, 5.8% lead), and two single-thread tests (4712 vs 4530, 3.9% lead).

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the Threadripper leads by 39.7% (4156 vs 2976).

Q: Do they use the same memory architecture?

A: No. The Threadripper uses an eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses a dual-channel bus with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC 4565P has a higher boost clock at 5.70 GHz, versus the Threadripper's 5.40 GHz. The Threadripper has a higher base clock at 4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same Zen 5 architecture and TSMC 4 nm process node, with identical transistor counts of 16,630 million and die sizes of 2x 70.6 mm² from TSMC. The codenames differ: the Threadripper is "Shimada Peak" in the Ryzen Threadripper generation, while the EPYC is "Grado" in the EPYC generation. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 64 MB of L3 cache, but the L1 cache differs — the Threadripper has 64 KB per core, while the EPYC has 80 KB per core. The EPYC also integrates Radeon Graphics, whereas the Threadripper has no integrated graphics.

The sockets and platforms are entirely different. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5 with 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC uses AMD Socket AM5 with 24 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. Memory support is another major divider: the Threadripper's eight-channel bus delivers 409.6 GB/s, compared to the EPYC's dual-channel 89.6 GB/s. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC's multiplier is locked. The Threadripper is classified as a Desktop processor with a 350 W TDP, while the EPYC is a Server/Workstation chip with a 170 W TDP. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both are actively in production, with the EPYC released on 2025-05-12 and the Threadripper on 2025-07-22. The part numbers are 100-000000725 for the Threadripper and 100-000001559 for the EPYC.