AMD EPYC 7643P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7643P has 48 cores and 96 threads. That is a 16-core, 32-thread advantage for the Threadripper part.

Q: How do the clock speeds compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX runs a 2.70 GHz base clock and a 4.20 GHz boost clock. The EPYC 7643P runs a 2.30 GHz base clock and a 3.60 GHz boost clock. The Threadripper is higher in both metrics.

Q: Which CPU has better single-thread performance in Cinebench?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 10071, while the EPYC 7643P scores 9276. That is an 8.6% lead for the Threadripper. The same 8.6% delta appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core tests.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the EPYC 7643P wins?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7643P wins PassMark physics (8002 vs 5498, a 31.3% advantage), PassMark find prime numbers (651 vs 566, a 13.1% advantage), and PassMark single-thread (2655 vs 2595, a 2.3% advantage). It also wins the duplicate PassMark single-thread test.

Q: What is the memory configuration for both CPUs?

A: Both support DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both also support ECC memory. There is no difference here.

Q: What are the release dates and launch MSRP values?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX was released on 2020-07-13 with a launch MSRP of $5489. The EPYC 7643P was released on 2023-09-04 with a launch MSRP of $2722.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for most workloads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It leads in every Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23, both multi-core and single-core) by a consistent 8.6%. It also dominates in PassMark data compression (38.9% ahead), data encryption (30.2% ahead), extended instructions (57.9% ahead), floating point math (28.2% ahead), integer math (25.4% ahead), multithread (8.6% ahead), and random string sorting (17.7% ahead).

The AMD EPYC 7643P wins only 4 tests, but those wins are meaningful for specific use cases. It has a substantial 31.3% lead in PassMark physics, a 13.1% lead in find prime numbers, and a small 2.3% lead in single-thread performance. If your workload is physics simulation, prime number crunching, or lightly threaded tasks, the EPYC is the better choice.

For general multi-threaded productivity, rendering, data compression, encryption, and math-heavy workloads, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the obvious pick. Its 64 cores give it a raw throughput advantage that the EPYC cannot overcome in most tests. The EPYC 7643P is a strong server part, but it is outclassed here on almost every measured metric.

The decision comes down to workload type. Render farms, video encoding, database compression, and scientific computing will favor the Threadripper. Physics engines, prime number searches, and single-threaded applications will favor the EPYC. The Threadripper's 8.6% consistent lead across all Cinebench versions shows a well-rounded performance profile, while the EPYC's wins are more specialized.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX comes in PassMark extended instructions. It scores 106423 against the EPYC 7643P's 67398, a massive 57.9% delta. This test likely exercises AVX or similar extended instruction sets, and the Threadripper's higher core count combined with its boost clock advantage crushes the EPYC here.

PassMark data compression is another major victory. The Threadripper scores 1841292, the EPYC scores 1326051, giving the Threadripper a 38.9% lead. This is a real-world benefit for database workloads, backup systems, and file archiving. The EPYC's fewer cores simply cannot move data through compression algorithms as quickly.

PassMark data encryption shows a 30.2% advantage for the Threadripper (124433 vs 95606). PassMark floating point math follows at 28.2% (277715 vs 216592). PassMark integer math is 25.4% in favor of the Threadripper (490116 vs 390775). PassMark random string sorting is 17.7% ahead (188574 vs 160274). These are all substantial margins that indicate the Threadripper's core advantage translates directly to throughput.

The Cinebench tests are consistent but less dramatic. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the Threadripper leads by exactly 8.6%. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 71338 vs 65710, and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 10071 vs 9276. This consistency suggests the Threadripper's architecture has a uniform advantage in rendering workloads, regardless of thread count.

The EPYC 7643P's biggest win is PassMark physics. It scores 8002 against the Threadripper's 5498, a 31.3% advantage. This is a physics simulation benchmark, and the EPYC's Zen 3 architecture appears to handle it more efficiently. PassMark find prime numbers also goes to the EPYC (651 vs 566, a 13.1% lead). Finally, PassMark single-thread shows a narrow 2.3% win for the EPYC (2655 vs 2595).

The overall record is 13 wins for the Threadripper and 4 for the EPYC. The Threadripper's wins are mostly by large margins, while the EPYC's wins are either narrow (single-thread) or in very specific workloads (physics, prime numbers). There is no benchmark where the two CPUs are close to tied; every test has a clear winner.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 7643P has 48 cores and 96 threads. This 16-core difference drives most of the performance gaps.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The Threadripper runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost. The EPYC runs at 2.30 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Threadripper's higher boost clock explains its single-thread wins despite the EPYC's newer architecture.

Thermal design power differs: the Threadripper has a 280 W TDP, the EPYC has a 225 W TDP. The Threadripper draws more power, which is expected given its higher core count and clock speeds.

Sockets are different: the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8, the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. These are not interchangeable, so motherboard choice is locked to the CPU.

Transistor counts are close but not identical: the Threadripper has 30,400 million transistors across 8x 74 mm² dies, the EPYC has 33,200 million across 8x 81 mm² dies. The EPYC's larger dies and higher transistor count reflect its newer Zen 3 design.

Market segment differs: the Threadripper is listed as Desktop, the EPYC as Server/Workstation. This is a classification difference, but both are workstation-class parts in practice.

Release dates are far apart: the Threadripper launched on 2020-07-13, the EPYC on 2023-09-04. Despite the three-year gap, the Threadripper still wins most benchmarks.

Launch MSRP values are provided once each: the Threadripper at $5489, the EPYC at $2722.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses Zen 2 architecture with the codename Castle Peak. The EPYC 7643P uses Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan. Both are built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, but the microarchitecture is one generation apart.

Cache configurations differ in organization. The Threadripper has 64 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, with 256 MB L3. The EPYC also has 64 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, but its 256 MB L3 is listed as shared. The Threadripper's L3 is not explicitly marked as shared, but both have the same total 256 MB L3 capacity.

The EPYC's Zen 3 architecture brings a redesigned core layout compared to Zen 2. Zen 3 integrates the core complex more tightly, reducing latency and improving instructions per clock. This explains why the EPYC wins the single-thread PassMark test (2655 vs 2595) despite having a lower boost clock. The Threadripper's higher boost clock (4.20 vs 3.60) offsets much of this architectural advantage in Cinebench single-core tests, where it still wins by 8.6%.

Die sizes differ: the Threadripper uses 8x 74 mm² dies, the EPYC uses 8x 81 mm² dies. The EPYC's larger dies hold more transistors (33,200 million vs 30,400 million) and likely accommodate the Zen 3 core changes.

Both CPUs support PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only). Both support DDR4 memory with eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both have ECC memory support. Neither has integrated graphics. Neither has a multiplier unlocked.

The Threadripper's part number is 100-000000087100-100000087WOF, the EPYC's is 100-000001285. The Threadripper is from the 3000 series, the EPYC is from the EPYC 7003 series.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the clear winner for multi-threaded throughput workloads. Its 64 cores and 128 threads give it a massive advantage in PassMark data compression (38.9% ahead), data encryption (30.2% ahead), and extended instructions (57.9% ahead). Any workload that involves heavy math, whether floating point (28.2% ahead) or integer (25.4% ahead), will favor the Threadripper. Rendering workloads, as measured by Cinebench across R15, R20, and R23, all favor the Threadripper by 8.6%, both in multi-core and single-core tests. This makes it the default choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific computing, and database processing.

The EPYC 7643P wins in specific, narrow scenarios. PassMark physics shows a 31.3% advantage for the EPYC, making it the better choice for physics simulation workloads, such as those found in engineering analysis or certain scientific applications. PassMark find prime numbers shows a 13.1% lead for the EPYC, indicating an advantage in integer-heavy algorithms that are not parallelized well. PassMark single-thread shows a 2.3% lead for the EPYC, so lightly threaded applications that cannot use more than one or two cores will perform slightly better on the EPYC.

The EPYC also has the advantage of a newer architecture (Zen 3 vs Zen 2), which gives it better instructions per clock. This is visible in the single-thread PassMark win despite the lower boost clock. However, this architectural advantage is not enough to overcome the Threadripper's higher core count and higher boost clock in most tests.

For a workstation that handles a mix of rendering, compression, encryption, and math, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the superior choice. For a server running physics simulations, prime number searches, or primarily single-threaded tasks, the EPYC 7643P has specific strengths. The data shows that the Threadripper is the more versatile performer, winning 13 of 17 benchmarks, while the EPYC is the specialist that wins in 4 targeted areas.