AMD EPYC 7313 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX wins the majority of head-to-head comparisons, taking 13 of 17 benchmark tests, while the AMD EPYC 7313 secures 4 wins. The Threadripper’s advantage is consistent and often substantial, particularly in memory-intensive and single-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 34131 against the EPYC’s 32847, a 3.8% lead. That margin repeats across every Cinebench iteration: R15 multi-core (3440 vs 3310), R20 multi-core (14335 vs 13795), and all single-core variants, where the Threadripper holds a 3.7–3.8% edge. The pattern is clear: in rendering tasks, the Threadripper is uniformly ahead, but by a modest single-digit margin.

The gap widens dramatically in PassMark’s data-centric tests. Data compression shows the Threadripper at 601738 versus 525507 for the EPYC, a 12.7% advantage. Data encryption swings even further: 38058 versus 31881, a 16.2% lead. Extended instructions follow suit with a 14.2% edge (38952 vs 33430). Random string sorting adds another 9.2% win for the Threadripper (63758 vs 57910). These results indicate the Threadripper’s higher clock speeds translate directly into faster execution of memory-heavy, latency-sensitive operations. PassMark single-thread performance confirms this: 2679 versus 2402, a 10.3% advantage. The Threadripper also wins PassMark multi-thread with 40155 versus 38644, again a 3.8% margin.

The EPYC 7313’s wins are fewer but striking in magnitude. In PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC scores 310 against the Threadripper’s 198 — a massive 56.6% victory. PassMark physics shows a similar outlier: 3899 versus 2460, a 58.5% lead. These are not marginal wins; they are dominant. The EPYC also edges out the Threadripper in floating-point math (78748 vs 77979, a 1% lead) and integer math (143648 vs 132456, an 8.4% advantage). The integer math win is particularly notable given the Threadripper’s overall speed advantage. The EPYC’s architecture appears better suited to certain algorithmic workloads, even when clock speeds are lower.

Overall average benchmark scores place the EPYC at 57399 and the Threadripper at 56555, a 1.5% difference in the EPYC’s favor. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the EPYC’s stronger showing in the physics and prime-number tests, which carry weight in the aggregate. Both CPUs sit at the 92nd percentile among all CPUs, so neither is a slouch. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X (57498, -0.2%), AMD EPYC 9015 (57555, -0.3%), and Intel Core i9-14900 (58115, -1.2%). The Threadripper’s nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 (56306, 0.4%), AMD Ryzen AI Max 390 (56273, 0.5%), and Intel Core i9-14900HX (56004, 1%). The data shows two well-matched competitors with different strengths.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7313 uses the Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan, while the Threadripper PRO 3955WX uses Zen 2 under the codename Castle Peak. Both are built on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ substantially. The EPYC packs 16,600 million transistors across four dies of 81 mm² each, totaling 4x 81 mm². The Threadripper uses 7,600 million transistors across two dies of 74 mm² each, totaling 2x 74 mm². The EPYC’s larger die count and higher transistor budget reflect its server-oriented design.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. Both allocate 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, but L3 cache differs: the EPYC has 128 MB shared L3, double the Threadripper’s 64 MB. This larger cache likely contributes to the EPYC’s dominance in prime-number finding and physics simulations, where working sets fit better in cache. The Threadripper compensates with higher clocks: 3.90 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost versus the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. That 0.9 GHz base and 0.6 GHz boost advantage explains the Threadripper’s wins in single-threaded and memory-latency-sensitive tasks.

Both CPUs support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and identical 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity matches as well: Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. The sockets differ — the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. The EPYC is classified as Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper is Desktop. Both are currently Active in production. The EPYC launched on 2021-03-14, while the Threadripper launched earlier on 2020-07-13. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX boosts to 4.30 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7313 boosts to 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7313 and the Threadripper PRO 3955WX list ECC memory support as true.

Q: How much L3 cache does each CPU have?

A: The EPYC 7313 has 128 MB shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper PRO 3955WX has 64 MB.

Q: Which processor won the PassMark physics test?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313 won PassMark physics with a score of 3899, compared to 2460 for the Threadripper, a 58.5% lead.

Q: Are both CPUs built on the same process node?

A: Yes, both are fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, though the EPYC uses 16,600 million transistors across 4x 81 mm² dies, and the Threadripper uses 7,600 million across 2x 74 mm² dies.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: Both have identical memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD EPYC 7313 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX:

• Series: EPYC 7003 series vs 3000 series
• Base clock: 3.00 GHz vs 3.90 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.70 GHz vs 4.30 GHz
• TDP: 155 W vs 280 W
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 vs AMD Socket WRX8
• Architecture: Zen 3 vs Zen 2
• Codename: Milan vs Castle Peak
• Generation: EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)) vs Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 2 (Castle Peak))
• Transistors: 16,600 million vs 7,600 million
• Die size: 4x 81 mm² vs 2x 74 mm²
• L3 cache: 128 MB (shared) vs 64 MB
• Market segment: Server/Workstation vs Desktop
• Release date: 2021-03-14 vs 2020-07-13
• Launch MSRP: The EPYC 7313 launched at $1083, while the Threadripper PRO 3955WX launched at $1149.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 3955WX is the clear choice for rendering and content creation. Its wins in every Cinebench test — R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core — make it the stronger option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other CPU-bound creative workloads. The 3.8% margin across all Cinebench tests is consistent and reliable. The Threadripper also dominates in data compression, encryption, extended instructions, and random string sorting, making it the better pick for database workloads, file archiving, and data processing pipelines. Its 10.3% single-thread advantage further cements its position for lightly threaded applications like legacy software or single-threaded games, though neither CPU is designed primarily for gaming.

The EPYC 7313 wins where algorithmic complexity and cache size matter more than raw clock speed. The 56.6% lead in prime-number finding and 58.5% lead in physics suggest the 128 MB L3 cache and Zen 3 architecture excel at workloads with large working sets and repetitive mathematical operations. The integer math win (8.4%) and floating-point edge (1%) point to scientific computing, engineering simulations, and financial modeling as strong use cases. The EPYC’s server classification and lower TDP (155 W vs 280 W) also indicate it is better suited for dense server environments where power efficiency and thermal management are priorities, though the data does not include direct power consumption measurements.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX if your priority is maximum throughput in common professional workloads. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench render benchmarks, and its highest margins come in exactly the areas that matter for daily workstation use: data compression (12.7% ahead), encryption (16.2% ahead), and single-thread responsiveness (10.3% ahead). The Threadripper’s higher base and boost clocks — 3.90 GHz and 4.30 GHz versus 3.00 GHz and 3.70 GHz — directly explain its broad superiority. Its 92nd percentile standing among all CPUs and average benchmark score of 56555, only 1.5% behind the EPYC’s 57399, show it is not sacrificing overall performance for its wins.

Choose the AMD EPYC 7313 if your workloads involve the specific algorithmic patterns where it dominates. The 56.6% win in prime-number finding and 58.5% win in physics are not minor edges; they are decisive. The EPYC’s 128 MB L3 cache, double the Threadripper’s, and its Zen 3 architecture give it a structural advantage in cache-sensitive, computation-heavy tasks. Its wins in integer math (8.4%) and floating-point math (1%) make it the safer bet for scientific and engineering software that relies on those operations. The EPYC also matches the Threadripper in memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s), PCIe lanes (128 Gen 4), and ECC support, so it loses nothing on platform features. For server deployments where the 155 W TDP is preferable to 280 W, the EPYC is the logical pick. The data does not show a universal winner — it shows two CPUs optimized for different ends of the professional market, with the Threadripper taking the broader win count and the EPYC taking the higher-impact specialty wins.