AMD EPYC 7473X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep in the direct comparisons. Across all six Cinebench tests, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins every round, with margins that are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Threadripper scores 5331 against the EPYC 7473X's 5078, a 4.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern: 752 versus 716, a 4.8% gap. These margins persist through R20 and R23, with the Threadripper leading by 4.7% in multicore workloads and 4.7% to 4.8% in single-core tests. Specifically, R20 multicore shows 22215 against 21162, R23 multicore shows 52895 against 50388, and R23 single-core shows 7467 against 7113.

What stands out is the uniformity of the deltas. The smallest recorded difference is 4.7% in R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore, while the largest is 4.8% in both single-core R15 and R20. This consistency suggests the Threadripper's advantage is not workload-specific but reflects a fundamental per-thread performance edge. The EPYC 7473X does not win a single head-to-head benchmark in the database, with a win count of zero against six for the Threadripper.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The EPYC 7473X has an average score of 14574 across its recorded tests, while the Threadripper PRO 3975WX averages 13786. The EPYC's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Xeon 6315P with an identical average score of 14574 and a delta of 0%. The Threadripper sits closer to the Intel Core 3 304, which averages 13745, a 0.3% gap. This discrepancy between head-to-head results and average scores arises because the EPYC's benchmark set lacks the Geekbench entries that the Threadripper includes. The Threadripper records Geekbench multicore at 16922 and single-core at 1570, tests that are absent from the EPYC's list.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the direct comparisons, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins in every scenario measured. It outperforms the EPYC 7473X in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads, making it the stronger choice for rendering tasks that rely on Cinebench's engine. The 4.8% single-core advantage in R15 and R20 indicates that the Threadripper handles lightly threaded tasks with slightly better responsiveness. For heavily threaded workloads, the 4.7% multicore lead across R15, R20, and R23 shows that the Threadripper sustains its advantage even when all cores are active.

The EPYC 7473X, despite losing every head-to-head test, does not lack merit in the broader database context. Its average benchmark score of 14574 places it at the 69th percentile among all CPUs, one percentile higher than the Threadripper's 68th percentile. The EPYC also matches the Intel Xeon 6315P exactly on average score, while the Threadripper trails the same Xeon by a wider margin. In practical terms, the EPYC's smaller core count of 24 versus the Threadripper's 32 does not translate into a multicore deficit in the recorded tests; the EPYC's 768 MB of shared L3 cache likely compensates for the core deficit in certain cache-sensitive workloads, though the direct benchmarks do not isolate this effect.

The Threadripper's wins are consistent across all Cinebench versions, suggesting that its architectural advantages, a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost of 4.20 GHz, propagate through every generation of the rendering benchmark. The EPYC's base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz cannot close the gap. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench scores, the Threadripper is the unequivocal choice. For users who value the EPYC's higher average score across a broader test mix and its server-grade positioning, the EPYC remains relevant, though the direct comparison does not favor it.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying designs. The EPYC 7473X belongs to the EPYC 7003 series, built on the Zen 3 architecture with the Milan-X codename, and features 24 cores with 48 threads. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX is part of the 3000 series, using the older Zen 2 architecture with the Castle Peak codename, but offers more cores: 32 cores and 64 threads. Both use a 7 nm process node from TSMC, but the EPYC packs 33,200 million transistors across a die size of 8x 81 mm², while the Threadripper uses 15,200 million transistors on a smaller 4x 74 mm² die.

Cache configurations provide the most striking contrast. The EPYC 7473X features a massive 768 MB of shared L3 cache, a hallmark of the Milan-X lineup, while the Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 128 MB of L3. Both share the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes: 64 KB and 512 KB respectively. This 6x difference in L3 cache likely explains why the EPYC's average benchmark score remains competitive despite losing every direct test. The larger cache reduces memory latency for frequently accessed data, which can benefit server workloads beyond the Cinebench suite.

Memory support is identical in specification: both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe capabilities match as well, with Gen 4 and 128 lanes available from the CPU. The sockets differ, with the EPYC using AMD Socket SP3 and the Threadripper using AMD Socket WRX8, reflecting their different market segments: the EPYC is classified as Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper is classified as Desktop, despite its prosumer positioning.

Clock speeds favor the Threadripper. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 4.20 GHz exceed the EPYC's 2.80 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Threadripper also has a higher TDP of 280 watts against the EPYC's 240 watts, which aligns with its higher core count and clock speeds. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a differentiator. Release dates also differ: the EPYC launched on 2022-03-21, while the Threadripper arrived earlier on 2020-07-13. The EPYC's newer architecture does not translate into higher benchmark scores in the direct comparisons, which is a notable finding given the generational gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the direct comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX wins all six head-to-head tests. It leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 for both multicore and single-core, with margins ranging from 4.7% to 4.8%.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The AMD EPYC 7473X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 128 MB of L3 cache, which is significantly smaller.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for these CPUs?

A: The EPYC 7473X has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has a boost clock of 4.20 GHz. The EPYC 7473X has a lower boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 7473X and the Threadripper PRO 3975WX support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 7473X has an average benchmark score of 14574, placing it at the 69th percentile. The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has an average score of 13786, at the 68th percentile.

Q: How does the EPYC 7473X compare to its nearest rival, the Intel Xeon 6315P?

A: The EPYC 7473X and the Intel Xeon 6315P have identical average benchmark scores of 14574, with a delta of 0%. This makes them effectively tied in the database.

Q: How does the Threadripper PRO 3975WX compare to the AMD EPYC 7443?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3975WX has an average score of 13786, while the AMD EPYC 7443 averages 13936, a 1.1% gap in favor of the EPYC 7443.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for users who prioritize the measured Cinebench workloads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3975WX outperforms the AMD EPYC 7473X in every direct comparison, with a consistent 4.7% to 4.8% lead. Its higher core count of 32 versus 24, combined with higher base and boost clocks, delivers tangible results in rendering benchmarks. The Threadripper also offers a lower launch MSRP of $2749 compared to the EPYC's $3900, though pricing should not be the sole factor in a decision.

The EPYC 7473X, however, holds its own in the broader database context. Its average benchmark score of 14574 exceeds the Threadripper's 13786, and it sits at a higher percentile rank of 69 versus 68. The EPYC's 768 MB of L3 cache is a substantial architectural advantage that may benefit workloads beyond the Cinebench suite, particularly those with large working sets or heavy data reuse. Its server-class market segment and Socket SP3 platform cater to different deployment scenarios than the Threadripper's desktop-oriented WRX8 socket.

For rendering professionals who rely on Cinebench as a proxy for real-world performance, the Threadripper PRO 3975WX is the stronger pick. Every recorded test shows it ahead, and the margins are not trivial. For server environments or applications that can exploit a massive L3 cache, the EPYC 7473X offers a compelling alternative, even though it loses the direct comparisons. The database shows that the Threadripper is the faster processor in the tested metrics, while the EPYC's cache advantage and higher average score suggest it serves a different role. Choose the Threadripper for raw Cinebench performance and the EPYC for cache-sensitive server workloads.