AMD EPYC 7282 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX and the AMD EPYC 7282 are two sides of the same Zen 2 silicon philosophy: one tuned for workstation speed, the other for server efficiency. The recorded data shows the Threadripper PRO 3945WX winning every single head-to-head benchmark, a clean six-out-of-six sweep across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests, with margins of roughly eleven percent in each. Despite the EPYC 7282 fielding more cores, sixteen against twelve, its lower clocks surrender the performance advantage. The data tells a clear story: frequency and per-core throughput beat raw core count in this pairing.

Both chips sit close together in the broader database rankings. The Threadripper PRO 3945WX holds a percentile of 64 against all recorded CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 7741, while the EPYC 7282 sits at the 63rd percentile with an average score of 7409. That proximity in the rankings masks a consistent gap in direct comparison, where the 3945WX's advantage never dips below eleven percent on any Cinebench workload in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every head-to-head result in the database favors the Threadripper PRO 3945WX, and the margins are remarkably uniform.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the 3945WX scores 2869 against 2581 for the EPYC 7282, an advantage of 11.2 percent. The single-core R15 result is 404 versus 364, a gap of 11 percent. Cinebench R20 follows the same pattern: 11956 versus 10758 in multi-core (11.1 percent) and 1687 versus 1518 in single-core (also 11.1 percent). Cinebench R23 completes the sweep with 28469 versus 25616 in multi-core and 4019 versus 3616 in single-core, both gaps of 11.1 percent.

The uniformity is the interesting part. An eleven percent lead in single-core workloads tracks directly with the clock speed difference: the 3945WX runs a 4.00 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost, while the EPYC 7282 runs 2.80 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. That translates into faster per-thread throughput on the Threadripper part. The multi-core gap being the same eleven percent, despite the EPYC carrying sixteen cores and thirty-two threads against twelve cores and twenty-four threads, indicates the EPYC's additional hardware does not pay off in these rendering workloads. Four extra cores cannot compensate for clock speeds that sit well below the Threadripper's.

Against their respective nearest rivals, both CPUs cluster tightly. The 3945WX's recorded rivals include the Intel Core i9-10980XE at an average score of 7910, slightly ahead of it, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX at 7578, slightly behind. The EPYC 7282 sits in an even tighter band: the Intel Core i9-9990XE at 7415, the Intel Core i9-9980XE at 7398, the Intel Core i5-4570 at 7421, and the Intel Core i5-7400 at 7469 all sit within one percent of its average score. In other words, the EPYC 7282 is statistically indistinguishable from its closest neighbors, while the 3945WX holds a small edge over most of its bracket, trailing only the i9-10980XE by roughly two percent on average score.

The Verdict

The Threadripper PRO 3945WX is the pick for anyone whose workload resembles the benchmarks in the database. It wins all six head-to-head tests, delivers higher single-core and multi-core throughput, and posts the higher average benchmark score, 7741 against 7409. Content creation, rendering, and any application that rewards per-thread speed favor it decisively.

The EPYC 7282 makes its case elsewhere in the spec sheet, not in the benchmark tables. Its thermal envelope of 120 watts, versus 280 watts for the 3945WX, points to density-oriented deployments where efficiency per socket matters more than peak speed. Its SP3 platform and server lineage reinforce that positioning. The launch MSRP of $650 is recorded for the EPYC 7282; no launch MSRP is recorded for the 3945WX.

Neither chip offers an unlocked multiplier, so the recorded scores represent the practical ceiling for both. There is no overclocking path to close the EPYC's deficit or extend the Threadripper's lead.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs share far more than separates them. Both are AMD Zen 2 designs built on TSMC's 7 nm process, with 7600 million transistors each and identical die configurations of 2x 74 mm². Both support DDR4 memory on an eight-channel bus with ECC, and both expose 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 from the CPU. Neither includes integrated graphics.

The divergence is in tuning and packaging. The 3945WX is the Castle Peak implementation of Zen 2, carrying the Ryzen Threadripper generation label and the WRX8 socket. It carries 64 MB of L3 cache listed as a single figure. The EPYC 7282 is the Rome implementation, built for Socket SP3 as part of the EPYC 7002 series, with 32 MB of L3 per die and 64 MB total. Per-core cache is identical: 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 on both parts.

The core counts differ, sixteen for the EPYC against twelve for the Threadripper, as do thread counts, thirty-two against twenty-four. But as the benchmark data shows, the EPYC's additional cores run at materially lower clocks, 2.80 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost, and lose to the 3945WX's 4.00 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost across the board.

One platform difference stands out in the memory data: the 3945WX records 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the EPYC 7282 records 85.3 GB/s despite the same eight-channel DDR4 specification. That bandwidth difference, combined with the clock advantage, helps explain why the Threadripper leads by the same margin in memory-hungry multi-core rendering as it does in single-core tests.

Release timing also differs. The EPYC 7282 shipped in August 2019, roughly eleven months ahead of the 3945WX's July 2020 release, reflecting AMD's staggered rollout of the same Zen 2 silicon across server and workstation segments. Both remain listed as Active in the database.

Specification Differences

Only a handful of fields separate the two, but each one matters:

• Cores/Threads: EPYC 7282 has 16 cores / 32 threads; 3945WX has 12 cores / 24 threads.
• Base/Boost Clock: 3945WX runs 4.00 / 4.30 GHz; EPYC 7282 runs 2.80 / 3.20 GHz.
• TDP: 3945WX at 280 watts; EPYC 7282 at 120 watts.
• Socket: WRX8 (3945WX) versus SP3 (EPYC 7282).
• Codename/Series: Castle Peak, 3000 series, versus Rome, EPYC 7002 series.
• Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s recorded for the 3945WX versus 85.3 GB/s for the EPYC 7282.
• Release date: 2020 for the 3945WX, 2019 for the EPYC 7282.
• Launch MSRP: $650 recorded for the EPYC 7282; none recorded for the 3945WX.
• Part numbers: 100-000000168 (3945WX) and 100-000000078 (EPYC 7282).

Everything else, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, per-core L1 and L2 cache, total L3, DDR4 support, ECC, PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, and the absence of integrated graphics, is identical in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3945WX, by eleven percent in every recorded head-to-head Cinebench test, multi-core and single-core alike. It won all six comparisons.

Q: Does the EPYC 7282 win anything?

A: It wins no benchmark in the database, but it wins on paper in core count, sixteen versus twelve, and on thermal design power, 120 watts versus 280 watts.

Q: Why does the CPU with fewer cores win multi-core tests?

A: Clock speeds. The 3945WX boosts to 4.30 GHz against the EPYC's 3.20 GHz, and it also records far higher memory bandwidth, 204.8 GB/s versus 85.3 GB/s. Together those overcome the core deficit.

Q: Are they built on the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both are Zen 2 on TSMC's 7 nm process with 7600 million transistors and 2x 74 mm² dies. The difference is implementation: Castle Peak for the workstation part, Rome for the server part.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: No. Both have locked multipliers in the database.

Q: Do they support the same memory and expansion?

A: Yes. Both support DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with ECC, and both provide 128 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 from the CPU.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 3945WX wins every performance scenario in the recorded data: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, single-core and multi-core, all by margins of eleven to 11.2 percent. Its 4.30 GHz boost and superior recorded memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for rendering, simulation, and any throughput workload where per-thread speed drives results. Its 64th percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database, against the EPYC's 63rd, confirms a small but real overall edge.

The EPYC 7282 wins where benchmarks do not measure: efficiency and density. Its 120 watt thermal envelope, less than half the Threadripper's 280 watts, and its SP3 server platform suit deployments where many sockets must fit within a fixed power and thermal budget. Its sixteen cores and thirty-two threads provide more hardware threads per socket, which can matter for heavily parallel server software even though it loses the rendering tests recorded here. Against its own rivals, it trades blows within one percent, sitting in a dead heat with the Intel Core i9-9990XE, i9-9980XE, Core i5-4570, and Core i5-7400 on average score.

The verdict is straightforward. For measured performance, take the Threadripper PRO 3945WX, which swept all six head-to-head benchmarks. For efficiency-first server deployments, the EPYC 7282's lower thermal envelope and higher thread count are its case, even though the benchmark data gives the performance crown, unanimously, to the Threadripper.