AMD EPYC 7642 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX and AMD EPYC 7642 are two formidable server/workstation processors that, on average, perform nearly identically. The overall average benchmark score for the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is 124171, while the EPYC 7642 sits at 124006, a mere 0.1% difference that places them as direct rivals. This near-parity in aggregate numbers is deceptive, however, as the data reveals a stark divergence in their respective strengths and weaknesses. The benchmark results indicate that the choice between them hinges entirely on the specific workload, with the Threadripper dominating in one set of tasks while the EPYC carves out a niche in others.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s overwhelming victory in the Cinebench suite. Across every single Cinebench test—R15, R20, and R23—the Threadripper wins with a consistent delta of 28.1%. This uniformity is remarkable. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Threadripper scores 64021 against the EPYC’s 49975, a 28.1% advantage. The single-core results tell the same story, with the Threadripper achieving 9038 in Cinebench R23 single-core compared to 7055 for the EPYC, also a 28.1% delta. This consistent margin across both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering tests suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency advantage, not just a raw core-count difference.

The Threadripper’s dominance extends beyond rendering. In PassMark’s Integer Math test, it posts 360156 versus 305303, an 18% lead. The Floating Point Math test shows an 11.3% advantage, with scores of 202363 and 181887 respectively. Even in data compression, the Threadripper wins with 1293784 against 1195584, an 8.2% lead. The most lopsided result, however, is in PassMark’s single-thread test, where the Threadripper scores 3323 compared to the EPYC’s 2052, a staggering 61.9% delta. This single-thread performance gap is the largest of any benchmark in the comparison and underscores a massive difference in per-core capability.

The EPYC 7642, while losing the vast majority of tests, does secure three decisive victories. Its most significant win is in PassMark’s Physics test, where it scores 5098 against the Threadripper’s 4360, a 14.5% delta. It also wins the Data Encryption test with 86397 versus 80453, a 6.9% advantage. Finally, it takes the Find Prime Numbers test with 496 points against 438, an 11.7% lead. These wins are not trivial; they indicate specific workloads where the EPYC’s design, likely its higher core count, provides a tangible benefit that overcomes its per-core deficit.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of two distinct usage profiles. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the unequivocal winner for any workload that is sensitive to clock speed and single-thread performance. Its 61.9% lead in the single-thread benchmark and 28.1% lead in all Cinebench tests make it the superior choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other creative applications that rely heavily on both multicore scaling and strong per-core performance. The consistent 28.1% delta across all Cinebench versions—despite the EPYC having 48 cores versus the Threadripper’s 32—indicates that the Threadripper’s Zen 3 architecture is delivering far more work per core. Its wins in Integer Math (18%) and Floating Point Math (11.3%) further solidify its position for general compute and scientific workloads that are not purely memory-bound.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 7642 wins in three specific areas that point to a different specialization. Its victory in the PassMark Physics test (14.5% delta) suggests a particular strength in physics simulations, which are often highly parallel but also benefit from a larger number of cores. The win in Data Encryption (6.9% delta) is particularly interesting, as it implies that the EPYC’s larger core count offers an advantage for cryptographic tasks, potentially through more parallel execution units. The Find Prime Numbers win (11.7% delta) is a classic benchmark for pure integer throughput and algorithmic efficiency, where the EPYC’s 48 cores may allow for better parallelization of the workload. The data indicates the EPYC is the better choice for highly parallel, specialized server tasks that can use its 48 cores to their full potential, especially in security and simulation environments.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architecture explains the dramatic performance split. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX is built on the Zen 3 architecture (codename Chagall PRO) and utilizes a 7 nm process node from TSMC. It features 32 cores and 64 threads, with a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is substantial, with 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a massive 128 MB of L3 cache. The chip is designed for the AMD Socket WRX8 and has a TDP of 280 W. It supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and offers Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. The transistor count is 16,600 million, spread across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration.

The EPYC 7642, in contrast, is based on the older Zen 2 architecture (codename Rome) but is also fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs significantly more cores—48—and threads—96—but at much lower clocks: a base of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 3.40 GHz. Its cache is also different: 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP3 and has a lower TDP of 225 W. It also supports DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus with the same 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and provides Gen 4 PCIe. The transistor count is listed as 3,800 million on a single 74 mm² die, which seems to represent a chiplet count, not the total package, given the larger core count and L3 cache.

These differences are critical. The Threadripper’s higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.40 GHz) is the primary driver of its 61.9% lead in single-threaded performance. The Zen 3 architecture also offers a significant IPC improvement over Zen 2, which explains the consistent 28.1% lead in Cinebench despite the EPYC having 50% more cores. The EPYC’s larger 256 MB L3 cache is likely a key factor in its Physics test win, as larger caches can improve performance in workloads with large, reusable datasets. The EPYC’s advantage in encryption could be attributed to its higher core count allowing for more parallel cryptographic operations.

The Verdict

From a pure benchmark perspective, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the superior processor for the vast majority of workloads. It wins 14 out of the 17 head-to-head tests, including all Cinebench tests and the crucial single-thread benchmark. The data strongly suggests that professionals in content creation, 3D modeling, and software compilation would favor the Threadripper for its exceptional per-core performance and high clock speeds. Its 28.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore (64021 vs 49975) demonstrates that even in heavily multithreaded scenarios, its architectural efficiency overcomes the EPYC’s core count advantage.

The AMD EPYC 7642, however, is not without its place. Its wins in Physics, Encryption, and Prime Number finding indicate that for specific server-side workloads, its 48 cores provide a tangible benefit that the Threadripper cannot match. The data suggests that for a server dedicated to cryptography, advanced simulation, or specific scientific computing tasks, the EPYC 7642 is the more appropriate choice. Its lower TDP of 225 W compared to 280 W also makes it a more power-efficient option for dense server deployments. The verdict is clear: choose the Threadripper PRO 5975WX for a workstation needing top-tier all-around performance, and the EPYC 7642 for a specialized server role where its specific benchmark wins are paramount.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX has a significantly higher PassMark single-thread score of 3323 compared to 2052 for the AMD EPYC 7642, a 61.9% difference.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper PRO 5975WX in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX scores 64021 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 28.1% higher than the EPYC 7642’s score of 49975.

Q: In which benchmarks does the AMD EPYC 7642 outperform the Threadripper PRO 5975WX?

A: The EPYC 7642 wins in three tests: PassMark Physics (5098 vs 4360), PassMark Data Encryption (86397 vs 80453), and PassMark Find Prime Numbers (496 vs 438).

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The EPYC 7642 has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds for each processor?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The EPYC 7642 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The average benchmark score for the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is 124171, and for the EPYC 7642 it is 124006, making them nearly identical with a 0.1% difference.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX | AMD EPYC 7642 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 32 | 48 |

| Threads | 64 | 96 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 225 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket WRX8 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Chagall PRO | Rome |

| Generation | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 3 (Chagall)) | EPYC (Zen 2 (Rome)) |

| Transistors | 16,600 million | 3,800 million |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 74 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 256 MB (shared) |

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

| Release Date | 2022-03-07 | 2019-08-06 |

| Launch MSRP | $3299 | N/A |