AMD EPYC 4584PX vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads. The EPYC part leads by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the boost clock differences?

A: The EPYC 4584PX boosts up to 5.70 GHz, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX boosts up to 5.40 GHz. The EPYC holds a 0.30 GHz advantage in maximum boost.

Q: Which CPU supports more memory channels?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX supports eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 4584PX is dual-channel at 83.2 GB/s. The Threadripper offers 5 times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which chip has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC 4584PX provides 28 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper has over 4 times the lane count.

Q: Does the EPYC 4584PX include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the EPYC 4584PX includes Radeon Graphics, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Q: Which CPU is newer?

A: The EPYC 4584PX was released on 2024-05-20, and the Threadripper PRO 9945WX was released on 2025-06-30. The Threadripper is over a year newer.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear split between the two processors. The EPYC 4584PX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX takes only 4. That dominance is concentrated in compute-heavy and data-intensive workloads, not in every category.

The EPYC 4584PX wins all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single and multi-core) by a consistent 6.6% to 6.7% margin. It also wins every PassMark test except three: extended instructions, physics, and single-thread performance. The EPYC leads in data compression by 10.4%, data encryption by 25.6%, floating point math by 8.9%, integer math by 8.9%, multithread by 2.2%, and random string sorting by 3.8%. Its biggest win is in find prime numbers, where it beats the Threadripper by 31.6%.

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX wins in single-thread tests (PassMark single thread and singlethread, both by 17%), in physics (by 25.2%), and in extended instructions (by 1.2%). These wins suggest a different strength profile: the Threadripper has a higher base clock of 4.70 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, and its Zen 5 architecture provides better per-clock instruction throughput. However, those advantages are narrow outside of physics and single-thread workloads.

For multi-core rendering, compilation, encryption, and general number crunching, the EPYC 4584PX is consistently ahead. For physics simulation, single-threaded legacy applications, and instruction-heavy code, the Threadripper has the edge.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The EPYC 4584PX uses Zen 4 (codenamed Raphael) on a 5 nm process from TSMC. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses Zen 5 (codenamed Shimada Peak) on a 4 nm process from TSMC. The newer node gives the Threadripper a transistor density advantage despite having fewer cores: it packs 16,630 million transistors into two 70.6 mm² dies, while the EPYC uses 17,840 million transistors across two 71 mm² dies.

Cache configuration is another major difference. The EPYC 4584PX has 128 MB of shared L3 cache plus a 64 MB 3D V-Cache slice, bringing its total L3 to 192 MB. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 64 MB of L3 cache and no 3D V-Cache. The EPYC's extra cache is a direct result of its 3D V-Cache technology, which likely explains its strong performance in data compression and encryption.

Both CPUs have 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The EPYC's massive L3 advantage (128 MB shared plus 64 MB V-Cache) is the most significant architectural difference for memory-heavy workloads.

The Threadripper compensates with a different memory subsystem: eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel DDR5 at 83.2 GB/s. This 5x bandwidth gap is enormous and matters for workloads that stream large datasets.

The EPYC 4584PX is built on AMD Socket AM5, while the Threadripper uses Socket sTR5. The EPYC has a 120 W TDP, and the Threadripper has a 350 W TDP.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences are straightforward:

• Cores and threads: EPYC 4584PX has 16 cores / 32 threads; Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores / 24 threads.
• Base clock: EPYC 4.20 GHz; Threadripper 4.70 GHz (Threadripper leads by 0.50 GHz).
• Boost clock: EPYC 5.70 GHz; Threadripper 5.40 GHz (EPYC leads by 0.30 GHz).
• TDP: EPYC 120 W; Threadripper 350 W.
• Process node: EPYC 5 nm; Threadripper 4 nm.
• L3 cache: EPYC 128 MB shared plus 64 MB 3D V-Cache; Threadripper 64 MB.
• Memory bus: EPYC dual-channel; Threadripper eight-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: EPYC 83.2 GB/s; Threadripper 409.6 GB/s.
• PCIe lanes: EPYC 28 Gen 5 lanes; Threadripper 128 Gen 5 lanes.
• Integrated graphics: EPYC has Radeon Graphics; Threadripper has N/A.
• Unlocked multiplier: EPYC is locked; Threadripper is unlocked.
• Release date: EPYC 2024-05-20; Threadripper 2025-06-30.
• Launch MSRP: EPYC $699; Threadripper has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. The EPYC 4584PX wins every Cinebench test by almost exactly 6.6%. In R15 multi-core, it scores 5193 versus 4871 (6.6% higher). In R15 single-core, 733 versus 687 (6.7% higher). R20 multi-core shows 21640 versus 20296 (6.6%), and R20 single-core shows 3055 versus 2865 (6.6%). R23 multi-core has 51524 versus 48325 (6.6%), and R23 single-core has 7274 versus 6822 (6.6%). This uniformity suggests the EPYC's extra cores and higher boost clock dominate regardless of thread count.

The PassMark tests show a wider spread. The EPYC wins data compression by 10.4% (741648 versus 671963) and data encryption by 25.6% (45902 versus 36540). These are the largest wins outside of find prime numbers, where the EPYC scores 441 versus 335, a 31.6% advantage. Floating point math (121460 versus 111566) and integer math (201919 versus 185421) are both 8.9% in favor of the EPYC. Multithread is closer at 2.2% (58117 versus 56854), and random string sorting is 3.8% (87690 versus 84498).

The Threadripper's wins are fewer but notable. In PassMark physics, it scores 6118 versus 4574, a 25.2% lead. In single-thread tests, it scores 4573 versus 3795, a 17% lead on both the single thread and singlethread entries. Extended instructions show a narrow 1.2% win (54406 versus 53774).

The physics result is interesting: the Threadripper's higher base clock and Zen 5 improvements give it a massive edge in physics simulation, despite losing most other compute tests. The single-thread lead is also significant, showing that per-core performance favors the Threadripper, but the EPYC's higher boost clock and extra cores flip most multi-threaded workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD EPYC 4584PX is the better choice for multi-core throughput, data-heavy server workloads, and any task that benefits from large cache. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, and 192 MB total L3 cache (128 MB shared plus 64 MB V-Cache) deliver consistent 6.6% wins in Cinebench and 8.9% to 31.6% wins in PassMark compute tests. It wins 13 of 17 benchmarks and occupies the 96th percentile among all CPUs, with an average score of 83090. Its nearest rivals, the AMD EPYC 9135 and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, are within 0.1% and 0.9% of its score, respectively, making it a tight competitive field.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the better pick for single-threaded applications, physics simulation, and workloads that need massive memory bandwidth or PCIe expansion. Its 4.70 GHz base clock and Zen 5 architecture deliver a 17% single-thread win and a 25.2% physics win. Its eight-channel memory at 409.6 GB/s and 128 PCIe lanes make it a platform for heavy I/O and large memory pools. It sits at the 95th percentile, with an average score of 76513, and its nearest rival, the AMD EPYC Embedded 8224P, matches it at 0% delta.

If you run rendering, compilation, encryption, or data compression, the EPYC 4584PX is the clear winner. If you need maximum single-core speed, physics processing, or extreme memory bandwidth and lane count, the Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the right tool. The EPYC is also the lower-power option at 120 W TDP versus 350 W, and it includes integrated graphics, which can simplify system bring-up. The Threadripper's unlocked multiplier is a bonus for overclocking, but its higher power draw and lack of iGPU are trade-offs. Choose based on workload, not brand loyalty: the benchmark results are unambiguous about where each chip excels.