AMD EPYC 7513 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7513 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX are both high-end workstation processors, but they represent completely different design philosophies and eras of AMD's architecture. The data shows a clear split: the EPYC 7513, a 2021 server chip built on Zen 3, dominates in raw compute throughput in several PassMark tests, while the Threadripper PRO 9955WX, a 2025 desktop-class part built on Zen 5, wins decisively in single-threaded performance and Cinebench rendering workloads. The EPYC 7513 holds a slight edge in average benchmark score at 102244 versus 100227 for the Threadripper, a 2% difference, placing both in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. This makes the choice less about overall performance and more about which specific workload patterns matter most to the user.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins the majority of the head-to-head matchups, taking 12 out of 17 tests, but the EPYC 7513 secures the more significant victories in its winning categories. In Cinebench, the Threadripper is consistently ahead by a margin of 15.2% across R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 59494 against the EPYC's 50431, and in single-core, it posts 8399 versus 7119. PassMark's multithread test follows the same pattern, with the Threadripper scoring 69993 against 59331, a 15.2% advantage. The largest single-thread win for the Threadripper is in PassMark's single-thread test, where it scores 4561 against 2479, a massive 45.6% lead, reflecting the immense clock speed advantage of the newer architecture.

However, the EPYC 7513 fights back in several specialized PassMark workloads. The most striking win is in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 63628 versus 48476 for the Threadripper, a 31.3% advantage. It also leads in data compression with a score of 932240 versus 890743, a 4.7% win, and in integer math with 272145 versus 246111, a 10.6% lead. The EPYC also edges out the Threadripper in floating-point math (151713 vs 148042, a 2.5% win) and in the find prime numbers test (380 vs 340, an 11.8% win). The Threadripper counters with a 20.3% win in extended instructions (70809 vs 56451), a 27.5% win in physics (7056 vs 5118), and a 4.8% win in random string sorting (109915 vs 104660). The overall win count is 12 for the Threadripper and 5 for the EPYC, but the EPYC's wins in encryption and integer math show it has unique strengths that the newer chip does not match.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental difference lies in the architecture generation and core configuration. The EPYC 7513 uses the Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a codename of Milan. It packs 32 cores and 64 threads, running at a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.65 GHz. The Threadripper PRO 9955WX uses the newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, with a codename of Shimada Peak. Despite being a newer design, it has fewer cores: 16 cores and 32 threads, but runs at much higher clocks of 4.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. The transistor counts reflect the process difference: the EPYC has 33,200 million transistors across 8 dies of 81 mm² each, while the Threadripper has 16,630 million transistors across 2 dies of 70.6 mm² each.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 and the same amount of L2 per core, but the Threadripper doubles the L2 to 1 MB per core compared to 512 KB per core on the EPYC. The L3 cache is halved on the Threadripper, at 64 MB shared versus 128 MB shared on the EPYC. Memory support is a major generational leap: the EPYC uses DDR4 with eight-channel memory and a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses DDR5 with eight-channel memory and double the bandwidth at 409.6 GB/s. PCIe connectivity also advances, with the EPYC offering Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only) while the Threadripper offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC is built for the AMD Socket SP3, while the Threadripper uses the newer AMD Socket sTR5.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 7513 is the clear winner for server-style, data-heavy workloads. Its 31.3% lead in data encryption and 10.6% lead in integer math point to strengths in cryptographic operations, database processing, and general number crunching. The 4.7% win in data compression and 2.5% win in floating-point math further reinforce its suitability for file servers, compression pipelines, and scientific computing tasks that rely on massive parallel throughput across its 32 cores. The EPYC's higher core count and larger L3 cache are the likely drivers of these wins, making it a better fit for virtualized environments or any workload that benefits from having more physical cores available.

The Threadripper PRO 9955WX is the winner for single-threaded performance and rendering workloads. The 45.6% lead in PassMark single-thread is staggering and directly attributable to its 5.40 GHz boost clock, which is nearly 1.75 GHz higher than the EPYC's 3.65 GHz. This makes it the better choice for applications that are poorly optimized for multi-threading, such as legacy software, certain CAD tools, and many games. The Cinebench results, which show a consistent 15.2% lead across all versions, indicate that the Threadripper is also superior for 3D rendering tasks that scale well with clocks and modern instruction sets. The 20.3% win in extended instructions shows it handles AVX-512 or similar workloads better, and the 27.5% win in physics suggests an edge in simulation and physics-based computations.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 7513 has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 102244, compared to the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX's 100227, a 2% difference.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper in single-threaded performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9955WX scores 4561 in PassMark single-thread, which is 45.6% higher than the EPYC 7513's 2479.

Q: Which CPU is better for data encryption tasks?

A: The EPYC 7513 is significantly better, scoring 63628 in PassMark data encryption versus 48476 for the Threadripper, a 31.3% advantage.

Q: What are the core counts and clock speeds of each CPU?

A: The EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads with a 2.60 GHz base and 3.65 GHz boost clock. The Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads with a 4.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which CPU supports DDR5 memory?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX supports DDR5 memory, while the AMD EPYC 7513 supports DDR4.

Q: What is the difference in the number of benchmark wins?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the EPYC 7513 wins 5.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The EPYC 7513 has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads. The base clock is 2.60 GHz on the EPYC versus 4.50 GHz on the Threadripper, and the boost clock is 3.65 GHz versus 5.40 GHz, respectively. The TDP is 200 W for the EPYC and 350 W for the Threadripper. The socket is AMD Socket SP3 for the EPYC and AMD Socket sTR5 for the Threadripper. The architecture is Zen 3 (Milan) for the EPYC and Zen 5 (Shimada Peak) for the Threadripper. The process node is 7 nm for the EPYC and 4 nm for the Threadripper, both from TSMC. The transistor count is 33,200 million for the EPYC and 16,630 million for the Threadripper. The L2 cache is 512 KB per core for the EPYC and 1 MB per core for the Threadripper. The L3 cache is 128 MB shared for the EPYC and 64 MB shared for the Threadripper. Memory support is DDR4 for the EPYC and DDR5 for the Threadripper, with memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. PCIe support is Gen 4 with 128 lanes for the EPYC and Gen 5 with 128 lanes for the Threadripper. The EPYC is a server/workstation part, while the Threadripper is a desktop part. The multiplier is locked on the EPYC and unlocked on the Threadripper. The release dates are March 2021 for the EPYC and July 2025 for the Threadripper.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear directive for buyers. If the workload involves heavy data encryption, integer math, or compression, the AMD EPYC 7513 is the superior choice, offering a 31.3% lead in encryption and a 10.6% lead in integer math, which are critical for server-side applications. Its 32 cores and 128 MB of L3 cache provide a robust foundation for massive parallel processing, and its lower TDP of 200 W makes it more power-efficient for always-on server duties. This is the chip for database servers, cryptographic infrastructure, and high-throughput data processing.

If the workload is primarily single-threaded or rendering-based, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is the unmistakable winner. The 45.6% single-thread lead is massive, and the 15.2% advantage across all Cinebench versions makes it the better choice for 3D rendering and animation. Its higher clock speeds and newer Zen 5 architecture with DDR5 support and double the memory bandwidth give it a significant edge in latency-sensitive tasks. The unlocked multiplier also allows for overclocking, which the EPYC does not offer. This is the chip for a workstation used for content creation, CAD, or any application where per-core speed is king. The choice is not about which is "better" overall, but which aligns with the user's dominant workload patterns.