AMD EPYC 7443 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the outright performance leader in this comparison, winning every single benchmark in the head-to-head data by a consistent margin of 8.9%. Despite this, the AMD EPYC 7443 posts a higher average benchmark score, 13936 versus 13786, a 1.1% difference, which shows that the EPYC’s overall profile is competitive despite losing the direct Cinebench tests. The Threadripper PRO’s dominance is clear, but the EPYC 7443’s positioning as a server/workstation part with identical memory bandwidth and PCIe lane counts makes it a distinct alternative for specific workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unequivocal: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins in every category tested. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the Threadripper PRO holds a 8.9% advantage over the EPYC 7443 in every run. This means that for pure rendering performance, whether the workload is lightly threaded or scales across all available cores, the Threadripper PRO is the faster processor. The largest single-core win is in Cinebench R23, where the Threadripper PRO scores 7467 against the EPYC’s 6802, while the multi-core gap in the same test is 52895 versus 48183.

The AMD EPYC 7443 does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks, but its strengths lie outside these specific tests. Its average benchmark score of 13936 is higher than the Threadripper PRO’s 13786, a 1.1% advantage, which suggests that when including a broader set of workloads, the EPYC 7443 can be more balanced. The EPYC 7443 also has a lower TDP of 200 watts compared to the Threadripper PRO’s 280 watts, and it uses the Zen 3 architecture, which is a generation newer than the Threadripper PRO’s Zen 2. For users who prioritize efficiency or need the latest architectural improvements, the EPYC 7443 offers a compelling case even without a benchmark win.

The Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the winner for anyone whose primary metric is Cinebench performance. Its 32 cores and 64 threads, combined with a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz, give it a raw throughput advantage that the benchmarks confirm. The EPYC 7443, with 24 cores and 48 threads, is not able to match the Threadripper PRO’s core count, and the benchmark results reflect this. The data shows a clear split: the Threadripper PRO wins every rendering test, while the EPYC 7443 counters with a better average score and a lower power envelope.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX scores 52895 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD EPYC 7443 scores 48183. The Threadripper PRO leads by 8.9% in this test.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 7443 faster in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Threadripper PRO 3975WX winning all six Cinebench tests, with a 8.9% advantage in each. However, the EPYC 7443 has a higher average benchmark score of 13936 versus 13786.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. Both the EPYC 7443 and the Threadripper PRO 3975WX support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, which is higher than the EPYC 7443’s 4.00 GHz boost clock. The Threadripper PRO also has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz compared to 2.85 GHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 7443 has an average benchmark score of 13936, which is 1.1% higher than the Threadripper PRO 3975WX’s 13786. The EPYC 7443 is also 0.5% above the Intel Core i7-8750H, while the Threadripper PRO is 0.3% above the Intel Core 3 304.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX winning every test by exactly 8.9%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 5331 against the EPYC 7443’s 4856. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with 752 versus 685. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 22215 for the Threadripper PRO and 20236 for the EPYC 7443, while single-core results are 3136 and 2856 respectively.

The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Threadripper PRO’s 52895 exceeds the EPYC 7443’s 48183 by 4712 points. The single-core R23 test shows the Threadripper PRO at 7467 versus 6802, a 665-point lead. These results indicate that the Threadripper PRO’s advantage is not limited to multi-threaded workloads; it also leads in single-core performance, which is notable given that the EPYC 7443 uses the newer Zen 3 architecture. The consistent 8.9% delta across all tests suggests a systematic performance advantage, likely driven by the Threadripper PRO’s higher clock speeds and additional cores.

In terms of average benchmark scores, the EPYC 7443 actually leads with 13936, compared to the Threadripper PRO’s 13786. This is a 1.1% difference in favor of the EPYC, which is interesting because it contradicts the head-to-head results. The EPYC 7443’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-10400 with an average score of 14037, and the AMD EPYC 7552 with 14115, both of which are higher than the EPYC 7443’s score. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8750H at 13868 and the Intel Core 5 120UL at 13594, showing that it sits in a similar performance tier.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7443 has 24 cores and 48 threads. This 8-core difference is a major factor in the multi-core benchmark results. Clock speeds also differ, with the Threadripper PRO having a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.20 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7443’s 2.85 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost. The Threadripper PRO is faster in both metrics.

The TDP is another key differentiator: the EPYC 7443 is rated at 200 watts, while the Threadripper PRO 3975WX is rated at 280 watts. This 80-watt gap means the EPYC is more power-efficient on paper, though the Threadripper PRO compensates with higher performance. The sockets are also different, with the EPYC 7443 using AMD Socket SP3 and the Threadripper PRO using AMD Socket WRX8. The market segments differ as well, with the EPYC 7443 classified as Server/Workstation and the Threadripper PRO as Desktop.

The release dates show the EPYC 7443 launched later, on 2021-03-14, while the Threadripper PRO 3975WX launched on 2020-07-13. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7443 is $2010, while the Threadripper PRO is $2749. Both processors have identical memory support, with DDR4, eight-channel buses, and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. They also share the same PCIe configuration: Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC 7443 has a larger die size at 4x 81 mm², while the Threadripper PRO has a smaller die at 4x 74 mm², despite having more cores.

Architecture Differences

The AMD EPYC 7443 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX uses the older Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak. This is a significant generational gap, as Zen 3 offers architectural improvements over Zen 2. Both processors are manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the EPYC 7443 has more transistors at 16,600 million, compared to the Threadripper PRO’s 15,200 million. The EPYC 7443 also has a larger die size of 4x 81 mm², versus 4x 74 mm² for the Threadripper PRO.

The cache hierarchy is identical in structure: both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is also the same at 128 MB, whether shared or total. This means the architectural difference comes down to the core design and instruction execution improvements in Zen 3, rather than cache capacity. The EPYC 7443’s generation is listed as EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)), while the Threadripper PRO’s generation is Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 2 (Castle Peak)).

Both processors support ECC memory, which is expected for these segments. The EPYC 7443 has its transistors counted at 16,600 million, a higher number than the Threadripper PRO’s 15,200 million, which suggests a denser or more complex design. The foundry is the same for both, TSMC, and the process node is identical at 7 nm. The key architectural takeaway is that the EPYC 7443 benefits from a newer core design, but the Threadripper PRO’s higher clock speeds and core count overcome this in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the faster processor in every Cinebench test, winning all six head-to-head benchmarks by 8.9%. Its 32 cores, 64 threads, and higher clock speeds of 3.50 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost give it a decisive edge in both single-core and multi-core rendering workloads. For users whose priority is raw Cinebench performance, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the unequivocal choice.

The AMD EPYC 7443, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score of 13936, indicating that it may perform better in a broader range of workloads not covered by the Cinebench suite. Its newer Zen 3 architecture, lower TDP of 200 watts, and lower launch MSRP of $2010 make it an attractive option for server or workstation deployments where efficiency and architectural modernity are valued. The EPYC 7443 also matches the Threadripper PRO in memory bandwidth and PCIe lanes, so platform capabilities are not a differentiator.

The choice comes down to use case. If the workload is dominated by Cinebench-style rendering and maximum core counts are essential, the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the winner. If a more balanced average performance, a newer architecture, and lower power consumption are priorities, the EPYC 7443 is the better fit, despite its benchmark losses. The data shows a trade-off: the Threadripper PRO wins on speed, while the EPYC 7443 wins on efficiency and architectural generation.