AMD EPYC 7313P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data splits these two 16-core, 32-thread parts into distinct performance territories. The AMD EPYC 7313P takes 11 of the 19 recorded benchmark wins, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX claims 8. The margin of victory matters more than the raw count, and the pattern is clear: the EPYC wins by small amounts in rendering and math workloads, while the Threadripper PRO wins by larger margins in system-level and encryption tasks.

In Cinebench, the EPYC 7313P is consistently ahead, but only by a narrow band. The R15 multicore test shows the EPYC at 3522 against the Threadripper's 3440, a 2.3% gap. The R20 multicore result repeats the pattern: 14679 versus 14335, again 2.3% in favor of the EPYC. The R23 multicore test lands at 34952 for the EPYC versus 34131 for the Threadripper, also a 2.3% difference. Single-core Cinebench results are similarly tight, with the EPYC leading by 2.4% across R15, R20, and R23. These are consistent, repeatable margins, but they are not transformative.

PassMark's multithread test also favors the EPYC, scoring 41121 against the Threadripper's 40155, a 2.3% edge. The floating point math test gives the EPYC a 5.2% win (82260 versus 77979), and integer math shows a 9% advantage for the EPYC (145558 versus 132456). The standout EPYC victories are in prime number finding and physics. The find prime numbers test shows the EPYC at 346 versus the Threadripper's 198, a massive 42.8% gap. The physics test is nearly as lopsided: 4229 versus 2460, a 41.8% difference. These two results indicate the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture handles specific computational patterns with far greater efficiency.

The Threadripper PRO 3955WX wins are concentrated in areas that matter for workstation responsiveness and data handling. Geekbench multicore shows the Threadripper at 12523 versus the EPYC's 10636, a 17.7% advantage. Geekbench single-core gives the Threadripper an 8.1% win (1684 versus 1558). PassMark data compression shows a 13.9% lead for the Threadripper (601738 versus 528167), while data encryption is 6.5% ahead (38058 versus 35727). Extended instructions show an 18.8% advantage (38952 versus 32784). The Threadripper also edges ahead in random string sorting by 1.9% and single-thread PassMark by 1.7%.

The average benchmark scores reflect these splits. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX posts an average score of 56555, placing it in the 92nd percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 7313P averages 53206, sitting in the 91st percentile. The Threadripper's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470 with an average score of 56306, a 0.4% delta. The EPYC's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X at 53288, a 0.2% delta in the EPYC's favor.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Zen generations, and that explains much of the benchmark behavior. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX uses Zen 2 architecture under the codename Castle Peak, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The EPYC 7313P uses Zen 3 architecture under the codename Milan, also on TSMC's 7 nm process. Both are 16-core, 32-thread parts, but the silicon underneath is not the same.

The EPYC 7313P packs 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX has 7,600 million transistors across two 74 mm² dies. That transistor count difference is significant: the EPYC has more than double the transistors of the Threadripper, and it spreads them across twice as many chiplets. The larger transistor budget in the EPYC enables the Zen 3 core redesign that improves instruction efficiency and math throughput.

Cache configuration is another major split. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache differs substantially. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX has 64 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 7313P has 128 MB of shared L3. That double L3 capacity is a direct contributor to the EPYC's strong performance in prime number finding and physics tests, workloads that benefit from keeping more working data on-die. The Zen 3 architecture also unified the L3 cache design, making the 128 MB shared pool more effective than the Threadripper's segmented arrangement.

Clock speeds favor the Threadripper, which runs a base clock of 3.90 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The EPYC's base clock is 3.00 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. Despite the lower clocks, the EPYC still wins most Cinebench and PassMark math tests, which shows the IPC efficiency of Zen 3 over Zen 2. The Threadripper's clock advantage does show up in Geekbench and encryption workloads, where higher frequency helps more than raw architectural efficiency.

Power and platform differences are notable. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX has a TDP of 280 watts and uses the AMD Socket WRX8. The EPYC 7313P has a TDP of 155 watts on the AMD Socket SP3. Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is identical: Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The market segments differ, with the Threadripper classified as Desktop and the EPYC as Server/Workstation.

The release dates are roughly eight months apart. The Threadripper PRO 3955WX launched on July 13, 2020, while the EPYC 7313P arrived on March 14, 2021. The Threadripper's launch MSRP is $1149, and the EPYC's launch MSRP is $913. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both remain in active production.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. The EPYC 7313P is the better choice for pure compute density and mathematics. It wins every Cinebench test, all three PassMark math-related tests (floating point, integer, prime numbers), and the multithread and physics benchmarks. The 42.8% lead in prime number finding and the 41.8% lead in physics are decisive. If the primary task is rendering, scientific simulation, or any workload that stresses arithmetic execution, the EPYC is the stronger part despite its lower clocks and lower TDP.

The Threadripper PRO 3955WX is the better option for system-level throughput and data manipulation. Its 17.7% Geekbench multicore win, 13.9% data compression win, and 18.8% extended instructions win show that it handles complex instruction streams and memory-heavy operations more effectively. The 8.1% single-core Geekbench advantage also makes it the better choice for responsive desktop use. For a workstation that runs a mix of application workloads, database operations, and content creation tools, the Threadripper's profile is more balanced.

The percentile rankings are close (92nd versus 91st), and the average benchmark scores differ by about 6%. The Threadripper's average of 56555 versus the EPYC's 53206 is a real but modest gap. The EPYC's nearest rivals cluster around the 53200 to 53500 range, while the Threadripper sits in the 56000 range with its nearest rivals. This means the Threadripper is competing in a slightly higher performance tier overall, even though it loses specific tests to the EPYC.

The TDP difference is worth noting for platform design. The EPYC's 155 watt TDP is substantially lower than the Threadripper's 280 watts, which could influence cooling and power delivery decisions in a server chassis. The EPYC also uses the SP3 socket, which is standard for EPYC platforms, while the Threadripper requires the WRX8 socket. Both are active production parts, so availability is not a concern.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several specification fields. The architecture is the most fundamental difference: Zen 2 for the Threadripper PRO 3955WX, Zen 3 for the EPYC 7313P. The codenames also differ, with Castle Peak for the Threadripper and Milan for the EPYC. The base clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, and the boost clocks are 4.30 GHz versus 3.70 GHz. The TDP is 280 watts for the Threadripper and 155 watts for the EPYC.

The sockets are different, with WRX8 for the Threadripper and SP3 for the EPYC. Transistor counts differ significantly, at 7,600 million versus 16,600 million. Die sizes also differ, with the Threadripper using 2x 74 mm² dies and the EPYC using 4x 81 mm² dies. The L3 cache is 64 MB for the Threadripper and 128 MB (shared) for the EPYC. The market segments are Desktop for the Threadripper and Server/Workstation for the EPYC. Release dates are July 13, 2020 for the Threadripper and March 14, 2021 for the EPYC. The launch MSRP values are $1149 for the Threadripper and $913 for the EPYC. The part numbers also differ, with the Threadripper using 100-000000167 and the EPYC using 100-000000339100-100000339WOF.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7313P wins 11 of the 19 head-to-head tests, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX wins 8.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark margin between these two CPUs?

A: The passmark_find_prime_numbers test shows the largest gap, with the EPYC 7313P scoring 346 versus the Threadripper's 198, a 42.8% difference in favor of the EPYC.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7313P scores 34952, which is 2.3% ahead of the Threadripper PRO 3955WX's 34131.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3955WX has an average benchmark score of 56555, which is higher than the EPYC 7313P's 53206.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

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

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7313P wins in rendering and compute-heavy workloads. All six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both single-core and multicore) go to the EPYC. PassMark multithread, floating point math, integer math, find prime numbers, and physics also favor the EPYC. The physics test score of 4229 versus 2460 is a 41.8% advantage, and the prime number score of 346 versus 198 is a 42.8% advantage. These are the workloads for the EPYC: scientific computing, simulation, rendering, and any task that pushes arithmetic units hard.

The Threadripper PRO 3955WX wins in data manipulation, encryption, and system-level responsiveness. Geekbench multicore and single-core both go to the Threadripper, with a 17.7% and 8.1% margin respectively. PassMark data compression (601738 versus 528167, a 13.9% lead), data encryption (38058 versus 35727, a 6.5% lead), and extended instructions (38952 versus 32784, an 18.8% lead) all favor the Threadripper. Random string sorting and single-thread PassMark also go to the Threadripper by narrow margins of 1.9% and 1.7%. These are the workloads for the Threadripper: database operations, compression tasks, encryption, and mixed desktop application use.

The overall picture is that the EPYC is a specialized compute engine with strong math throughput, while the Threadripper is a general-purpose workstation chip that handles a wider variety of tasks with higher peak performance in system-level operations. The EPYC's lower TDP and higher L3 cache make it attractive for dense server deployments. The Threadripper's higher clocks and Geekbench scores make it the better choice for interactive workstation use where single-threaded responsiveness and data throughput matter. Both are 16-core, 32-thread parts with identical PCIe and memory capabilities, so the decision comes down to workload mix rather than core count or platform features.