AMD EPYC 7402P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7402P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX are both server/workstation processors from AMD, but they target different points in the performance spectrum. The EPYC 7402P wins the majority of the benchmark comparisons, taking six of eight head-to-head tests, while the Threadripper PRO 5945WX dominates in Geekbench workloads. This analysis breaks down exactly where each chip excels, what separates them architecturally, and which use cases favor one over the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 7402P is the clear winner across all Cinebench tests, posting consistent margins of roughly 8.7% to 8.8% over the Threadripper PRO 5945WX. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 3749 against 3447, a delta of 8.8%. The single-core R15 test shows the same 8.8% edge, with 529 versus 486. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 15621 for the EPYC versus 14365 for the Threadripper, an 8.7% advantage, while single-core R20 sees 2205 versus 2027, again 8.8% ahead. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: multi-core 37195 versus 34204 (8.7% delta) and single-core 5251 versus 4828 (8.8% delta). These are tightly clustered margins, indicating a consistent architectural advantage for the EPYC in Cinebench workloads rather than a test-specific anomaly.

The story flips dramatically in Geekbench. The Threadripper PRO 5945WX takes the multi-core test with 13371 against the EPYC’s 10476, a 21.7% lead. Even more striking is single-core Geekbench, where the Threadripper scores 2059 versus 1204, a massive 41.5% advantage. These deltas are far larger than any Cinebench margin, suggesting that Geekbench’s workload characteristics favor the Threadripper’s higher clock speeds and newer core architecture in ways that Cinebench does not.

Looking at overall averages, the EPYC 7402P has an avgBenchmarkScore of 9529, while the Threadripper PRO 5945WX sits at 9348. Both chips land in the 65th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in aggregate performance despite their divergent test-by-test results. The nearest rivals for the EPYC include the Intel Core i7-7700HQ (0.4% delta), Intel Atom x7835RE (1.1%), and Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 (1.3%), while the Threadripper’s rivals include the same Xeon Platinum 8180 (-0.6% delta) and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X (0.7%). These rival deltas are all under 1.5%, underscoring how closely packed this performance tier is.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 7402P is built on Zen 2 architecture with the codename Rome, part of the EPYC 7002 series. It packs 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.35 GHz. The Threadripper PRO 5945WX, in contrast, uses Zen 3 architecture under the codename Chagall PRO, from the 5000 series. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, but runs at much higher clocks: 4.10 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process, but the transistor counts differ substantially. The EPYC uses 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die, while the Threadripper uses 16,600 million transistors spread across 4x 81 mm² dies. That difference explains why the Threadripper can achieve higher clocks despite fewer cores — it has a more refined, denser design.

Cache configurations also diverge. The EPYC has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 128 MB L3 cache. The Threadripper offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 64 MB of L3. The EPYC’s larger L3 is a direct consequence of its server-oriented design, where large shared caches help with multi-threaded server workloads. The Threadripper sacrifices L3 capacity for clock speed and single-thread responsiveness.

Memory support is identical on paper: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities match as well, with Gen 4 and 128 lanes (CPU only) on both. The sockets differ — the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC launched on 2019-08-06 with a launch MSRP of $1280, while the Threadripper launched on 2022-03-07 with no MSRP listed. The EPYC’s TDP is 180, while the Threadripper’s is 280. Both remain in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7402P has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Why does the Threadripper win Geekbench by such a large margin?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5945WX’s higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz, combined with its newer Zen 3 architecture, give it a 41.5% lead in Geekbench single-core and a 21.7% lead in multi-core. The EPYC’s lower clocks (2.80 GHz base, 3.35 GHz boost) and older Zen 2 design cannot match Geekbench’s performance scaling.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

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

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 7402P has 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper PRO 5945WX has 64 MB of L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit in the 65th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are close: 9529 for the EPYC versus 9348 for the Threadripper.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The EPYC 7402P has a TDP of 180, while the Threadripper PRO 5945WX has a TDP of 280.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the EPYC 7402P is the better choice for Cinebench-class rendering workloads, winning all six Cinebench tests with a consistent 8.7% to 8.8% margin. Its 24 cores provide more parallel throughput, and its 128 MB L3 cache helps in sustained multi-threaded rendering. The Threadripper PRO 5945WX, however, is the superior option for Geekbench-style workloads, particularly single-threaded tasks where its 4.50 GHz boost clock delivers a 41.5% advantage. The Threadripper’s 21.7% multi-core Geekbench lead also suggests that certain applications that scale well with clock speed rather than raw core count will favor it.

For server deployments running heavily threaded, long-duration workloads — such as batch rendering, simulation, or database processing — the EPYC’s core count and larger cache make it the safer bet. For workstation users who need snappy single-thread performance for interactive applications, code compilation with low latency, or software that does not scale perfectly across cores, the Threadripper’s clock advantage is decisive. The EPYC also carries a lower TDP of 180 versus 280, meaning it draws less power while still winning most benchmarks, which matters in dense server environments. The Threadripper’s higher TDP is the price of those higher clocks.

Neither chip is the aggregate winner; they are tied at the 65th percentile. The choice hinges entirely on workload composition. If your benchmark suite resembles Cinebench, the EPYC wins. If it resembles Geekbench, the Threadripper wins.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 7402P | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5945WX |

|-------|-----------------|-----------------------------------|

| Series | EPYC 7002 series | 5000 series |

| Cores | 24 | 12 |

| Threads | 48 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 | 4.10 |

| Boost Clock | 3.35 | 4.50 |

| TDP | 180 | 280 |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Architecture | Zen 2 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Rome | Chagall PRO |

| Transistors | 3,800 million | 16,600 million |

| Die Size | 74 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB (shared) | 64 MB |

| Release Date | 2019-08-06 | 2022-03-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $1280 | null |

The specification table shows the core trade-offs: the EPYC offers double the cores and double the L3 cache, while the Threadripper counters with substantially higher clocks and a newer architecture. The EPYC’s smaller transistor count (3,800 million) and single die (74 mm²) contrast with the Threadripper’s 16,600 million transistors across 4x 81 mm² dies. Both share the same memory bus, PCIe generation and lane count, ECC support, and lack of integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7402P wins in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. This makes it the go-to processor for rendering engines that use Cinebench-style algorithms, such as 3D animation rendering or visual effects compositing. Its 128 MB L3 cache is a clear asset for workloads with high data reuse, and its 24 cores provide twice the parallel execution resources of the Threadripper. The EPYC also wins on power efficiency, with a TDP of 180 versus 280, making it more suitable for dense server racks where thermal limits are a concern.

The Threadripper PRO 5945WX wins in Geekbench multi-core and single-core, with margins of 21.7% and 41.5%, respectively. This makes it the better fit for software that is latency-sensitive or lightly threaded, including interactive workloads, single-threaded data processing, and applications where clock speed outranks core count. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock is the highest of the two, directly driving those Geekbench results. The Threadripper also benefits from newer Zen 3 architecture, which improves instructions-per-clock efficiency over Zen 2. For workstation users who split time between rendering and general desktop responsiveness, the Threadripper’s Geekbench dominance may translate into a snappier overall experience, even if it loses the Cinebench races.