AMD EPYC 7513 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data presents a clear overall winner in the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX, which takes 14 of the 17 recorded comparisons. The margin is not uniform across all tests, and the EPYC 7513 secures three specific wins that reveal its distinct design priorities.

The most consistent Threadripper advantage appears in the Cinebench suite. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX leads by exactly 10.6% in every case. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 56,400 against the EPYC's 50,431. In single-core R23, the Threadripper posts 7,962 versus 7,119. This identical 10.6% delta across both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests indicates a uniform clock-driven advantage rather than a scaling difference.

The PassMark suite shows a wider spread of results. The largest single-threaded gap comes in PassMark single thread, where the Threadripper scores 3,337 against the EPYC's 2,479, a 25.7% advantage. The find prime numbers test also favors the Threadripper heavily, with 523 versus 380, a 27.3% lead. Extended instructions go to the Threadripper by 16.1%, scoring 67,300 against 56,451. Data compression shows a 7.7% Threadripper lead at 1,010,067 versus 932,240. Multithread results follow the Cinebench pattern, with the Threadripper at 66,353 versus 59,331, a 10.6% margin. Floating point math and integer math are closer, with Threadripper leads of 3.8% and 3.2% respectively.

The EPYC 7513 claims three wins, and each is notable. The largest is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC scores 5,118 against 4,251, a 20.4% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the EPYC at 104,660 versus 99,287, a 5.4% lead. Data encryption is the narrowest EPYC win at 63,628 versus 63,113, just 0.8% ahead. These wins suggest that the EPYC's additional eight cores provide a measurable benefit in certain workloads, but the effect is inconsistent across the broader benchmark set.

The aggregate benchmark scores confirm the overall positioning. The EPYC 7513 has an average benchmark score of 102,244, while the Threadripper PRO 5965WX averages 98,504. This places both processors at the 97th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The EPYC's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8324P at 103,329, just 1.1% higher, and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX at 101,041, which is 1.2% lower. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX sits near the AMD EPYC 4585PX, which scores 99,324, only 0.8% higher, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D at 97,453, which is 1.1% lower. Both processors are positioned similarly in the database's overall rankings, despite their different benchmark win distributions.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX dominates in nearly every measured category, but the pattern of its wins points to clock speed and per-core efficiency as the deciding factors. Its base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz are substantially higher than the EPYC's 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost. The single-threaded PassMark result, with a 25.7% gap, and the Cinebench single-core results, with a 10.6% gap, both align with this clock advantage. The Threadripper also leads in integer math, floating point math, extended instructions, and prime number finding, all workloads that respond strongly to per-core throughput.

The EPYC 7513 wins in PassMark physics, random string sorting, and data encryption. The physics result is the most decisive, with a 20.4% margin. Physics simulations in the PassMark suite typically scale with core count and memory bandwidth, and the EPYC's 32 cores against 24 provide the raw parallelism needed here. Random string sorting, with a 5.4% EPYC lead, also benefits from the additional cores. Data encryption is nearly a tie, at 0.8%, but the EPYC edges ahead, suggesting that its core count compensates for the Threadripper's clock advantage in this specific workload.

The data compression test is interesting because it runs against the core-count narrative. The Threadripper wins at 1,010,067 versus 932,240, a 7.7% margin, despite having eight fewer cores. The Threadripper's higher clocks and the nature of the compression workload apparently outweigh the EPYC's core advantage. Similarly, the multithread PassMark test, which would seem to favor the EPYC's 32 cores, goes to the Threadripper by 10.6%, matching the Cinebench multi-core margin exactly. This suggests that the Threadripper's higher clock speed is sufficient to overcome the EPYC's 33.3% core count advantage across most multi-threaded tests in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 3 architecture, the 7 nm process node, and TSMC as the foundry. They also match on L1 cache at 64 KB per core and L2 cache at 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is identical at 128 MB in both cases, with the EPYC listing it as shared and the Threadripper as a single 128 MB pool. Both support DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe is also identical: Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU only.

The core and thread counts differ significantly. The EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 5965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads. The EPYC uses 8 compute dies at 81 mm² each, totaling 33,200 million transistors. The Threadripper uses 4 dies at 81 mm² each, totaling 16,600 million transistors. The die count difference is notable: the EPYC doubles the Threadripper's die count, and its transistor count is exactly double as well.

The sockets differ, with the EPYC on AMD Socket SP3 and the Threadripper on AMD Socket WRX8. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 7003 series with the Milan codename, while the Threadripper is part of the 5000 series with the Chagall PRO codename. The EPYC's generation is listed as EPYC (Zen 3 (Milan)), and the Threadripper's as Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 3 (Chagall)).

Power and thermal characteristics differ as well. The EPYC has a TDP of 200 watts, while the Threadripper has a TDP of 280 watts. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC carries the part number 100-000000334100-100000334WOF, and the Threadripper is 100-000000446. The EPYC was released on March 14, 2021, and the Threadripper on March 7, 2022, nearly a year later. The launch MSRP for the EPYC 7513 was $2840, and for the Threadripper PRO 5965WX it was $2399.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: Why does the Threadripper PRO 5965WX win most benchmarks despite having fewer cores?

A: The Threadripper has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, compared to the EPYC's 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost. The recorded data shows a 25.7% single-thread advantage for the Threadripper and a 10.6% margin across all Cinebench tests.

Q: In which benchmarks does the EPYC 7513 win?

A: The EPYC wins in PassMark physics (5,118 versus 4,251, a 20.4% lead), random string sorting (104,660 versus 99,287, a 5.4% lead), and data encryption (63,628 versus 63,113, a 0.8% lead).

Q: Are the memory configurations different between the two?

A: No. Both support DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, and both support ECC memory.

Q: Do the two processors use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use Zen 3 on the 7 nm process from TSMC. The EPYC uses the Milan codename, and the Threadripper uses Chagall PRO.

Q: How do their overall database scores compare?

A: The EPYC 7513 has an average benchmark score of 102,244, and the Threadripper PRO 5965WX scores 98,504. Both sit at the 97th percentile among all CPUs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX is the stronger performer in the vast majority of tests. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test, all PassMark math and instruction tests, data compression, multithread, and single-thread. Its 10.6% lead across the entire Cinebench suite, and its 25.7% single-thread advantage, point to a processor that delivers higher per-core performance across the board.

The AMD EPYC 7513 is the better choice only in workloads that match its three wins. The 20.4% physics advantage is substantial, and the random string sorting and data encryption wins, though smaller, show that the 32-core configuration has specific strengths. The EPYC's higher average benchmark score of 102,244 against 98,504 also reflects its position among the database's top processors, but this aggregate figure does not translate into more head-to-head wins.

For most multi-threaded rendering, math, and general compute workloads, the recorded data favors the Threadripper PRO 5965WX. For physics simulation, sorting workloads, and encryption tasks, the EPYC 7513 demonstrates a measurable edge. The Threadripper also comes with a lower launch MSRP of $2399 against the EPYC's $2840, though both are positioned in the same performance tier at the 97th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7513 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX |

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

| Cores | 32 | 24 |

| Threads | 64 | 48 |

| Base clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.65 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 280 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Codename | Milan | Chagall PRO |

| Transistors | 33,200 million | 16,600 million |

| Die size | 8x 81 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| Release date | 2021-03-14 | 2022-03-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $2840 | $2399 |

| Part number | 100-000000334100-100000334WOF | 100-000000446 |