AMD EPYC 7551P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data presents a starkly split picture. Across the Cinebench suite, the AMD EPYC 7551P is the decisive winner, outperforming the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX in every single one of the six tests. The margins are remarkably consistent: a 14.2% advantage in Cinebench R15 multicore (3276 vs 2869), a 14.4% lead in R15 singlecore (462 vs 404), and the identical 14.2% delta in both Cinebench R20 multicore (13650 vs 11956) and R20 singlecore (1926 vs 1687). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the EPYC scores 32500 multicore and 4588 singlecore, versus the Threadripper's 28469 and 4019 — again a 14.2% gap.

This uniformity is striking. The EPYC 7551P wins the single-core Cinebench tests by roughly the same margin as the multi-core tests, which suggests the advantage is not merely about raw core count but about per-thread efficiency in this particular workload. The Threadripper PRO 3945WX, with its higher base clock of 4.00 GHz, cannot translate that clock speed into a Cinebench win.

The narrative flips completely in Geekbench. Here, the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX dominates. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 10854 against the EPYC's 6296 — a 42% advantage. The single-core result is even more lopsided: 1668 vs 919, a 44.9% gap. This is not a marginal difference; it is a fundamental divergence in how these two processors respond to different benchmark environments. The EPYC 7551P's 32 cores and 64 threads give it an edge in Cinebench's rendering-focused workload, while the Threadripper's Zen 2 architecture and higher clocks crush the older Zen-based EPYC in Geekbench's more latency-sensitive, mixed-integer tests.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the EPYC 7551P wins 6 of the 8 head-to-head benchmarks. Its average benchmark score is 7952, slightly above the Threadripper's 7741. However, both processors sit at the same 64th percentile among all CPUs, and the nearestRivals data shows they occupy similar competitive territory. The EPYC's closest rival, the Intel Core i7-13700E, has an average score of 7957, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Threadripper's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-4590, scores 7609, putting the Threadripper 1.7% ahead. The two AMD parts are separated by only 211 points in average score, but their benchmark profiles could not be more different.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two is substantial. The EPYC 7551P is built on the first-generation Zen architecture, codenamed Naples, and fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, on a 7 nm process at TSMC. This is a full generation apart, and the process node difference — 14 nm versus 7 nm — explains much of the efficiency and frequency disparity.

The transistor counts reflect the generational leap. The EPYC packs 4,800 million transistors on a single 213 mm² die. The Threadripper PRO 3945WX has 7,600 million transistors spread across a dual-die design, with each die measuring 74 mm². Despite having fewer cores — 12 versus the EPYC's 32 — the Threadripper carries more total transistors, a signal of the denser 7 nm process.

Core and cache configurations differ markedly. The EPYC 7551P offers 32 cores and 64 threads, with 96 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus 64 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper PRO 3945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and the same 64 MB of L3. The per-core L1 allocation is smaller on the Threadripper, but the total L3 cache is identical at 64 MB.

Clock speeds are a major differentiator. The EPYC runs at a 2.00 GHz base clock with a 3.00 GHz boost. The Threadripper starts at 4.00 GHz and boosts to 4.30 GHz. That is a doubling of the base clock and a 43% higher boost clock. Yet, as the benchmarks show, this clock advantage does not guarantee victory in all workloads.

Memory subsystems are similar in channel count — both support eight-channel DDR4 — but the bandwidth differs. The EPYC delivers 170.6 GB/s, while the Threadripper reaches 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is a clear win for the Threadripper: it supports Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the EPYC is limited to Gen 3.

The sockets are incompatible: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3, the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. Power envelopes also diverge significantly, with the EPYC rated at 180 W TDP and the Threadripper at 280 W. The multiplier is unlocked on the EPYC but locked on the Threadripper. Release dates are three years apart — the EPYC launched in June 2017, the Threadripper in July 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 7551P wins 6 of the 8 benchmark comparisons, all of them in the Cinebench suite. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX wins the remaining 2, both in Geekbench.

Q: What is the performance gap in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The EPYC 7551P scores 32500, which is 14.2% higher than the Threadripper PRO 3945WX's 28469.

Q: How large is the Geekbench single-core advantage for the Threadripper?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3945WX scores 1668, which is 44.9% higher than the EPYC 7551P's 919 in Geekbench single-core.

Q: Do both processors have the same amount of L3 cache?

A: Yes, both have 64 MB of shared L3 cache, although the EPYC 7551P has 32 cores sharing it while the Threadripper PRO 3945WX has only 12 cores.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3945WX provides 204.8 GB/s, which is higher than the EPYC 7551P's 170.6 GB/s, despite both using eight-channel DDR4 memory.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The EPYC 7551P has an unlocked multiplier, while the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX does not.

The Verdict

The data does not point to a single universal winner; it points to two distinct tools for distinct jobs. The AMD EPYC 7551P is the choice for workloads that resemble Cinebench — heavily threaded, sustained rendering or compute tasks where its 32 cores and 64 threads deliver a consistent 14.2% advantage across every Cinebench version tested. Its lower TDP of 180 W, compared to the Threadripper's 280 W, also makes it the more power-conscious option for server racks.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX is the pick for workloads that resemble Geekbench — mixed integer operations, latency-sensitive tasks, and single-threaded responsiveness. Its 42% multicore and 44.9% single-core wins in Geekbench are enormous margins that dwarf the EPYC's Cinebench lead. The higher base clock of 4.00 GHz, the 7 nm Zen 2 architecture, and the PCIe Gen 4 support with 128 lanes make it a more modern platform overall.

Consider the market segments. Both are listed as Server/Workstation parts. The EPYC 7551P, from the older 7001 series, is a foundational server CPU. The Threadripper PRO 3945WX, from the 3000 series, targets high-end workstations. The EPYC's 64th percentile ranking among all CPUs matches the Threadripper's — they are peers in the broader landscape. But their benchmark signatures are nearly opposite. Choose the EPYC for Cinebench-style throughput and higher core counts. Choose the Threadripper for Geekbench-style performance and modern I/O. The average benchmark scores are close — 7952 versus 7741 — but the underlying numbers tell a story of two very different processors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 7551P | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX |

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

| Cores | 32 | 12 |

| Threads | 64 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2000.00 MHz | 4000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 180 W | 280 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP3 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Architecture | Zen | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Naples | Castle Peak |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 4,800 million | 7,600 million |

| Die Size | 213 mm² | 2x 74 mm² |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 170.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3 | Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2017-06-28 | 2020-07-13 |

Both support DDR4 memory, eight-channel memory buses, and ECC memory. Neither has integrated graphics. The L2 cache is identical at 512 KB per core, and both have 64 MB of L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 7551P wins in every Cinebench benchmark — R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering workloads, 3D visualization, and any compute task that follows a similar parallel execution pattern. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide raw throughput that the 12-core Threadripper cannot match in these tests. The 14.2% consistent margin across all Cinebench versions indicates a stable, predictable advantage.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX wins decisively in Geekbench. The 42% multicore margin and 44.9% single-core margin are the largest performance deltas in the entire comparison. This points to superior performance in applications that rely on integer math, memory latency, and branch prediction — the kinds of workloads found in software compilation, data processing, and interactive workstation use. The higher memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s and the PCIe Gen 4 connectivity with 128 lanes also make it the better foundation for a modern workstation with fast storage and multiple GPUs.

The EPYC 7551P's lower TDP of 180 W versus 280 W gives it an efficiency advantage in dense server deployments. The Threadripper's newer 7 nm process and higher clock speeds give it an architectural edge that shows up in Geekbench. For a server prioritizing Cinebench-style throughput per watt, the EPYC wins. For a workstation prioritizing Geekbench-style responsiveness and modern I/O, the Threadripper wins. The benchmark data supports both conclusions without contradiction.