AMD EPYC 7663 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 7663 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX represent two distinct philosophies for high-core-count computing, and the benchmark data illustrates a clear split. The EPYC 7663, a 56-core Zen 3 server part, excels in raw parallel throughput and specific server workloads, while the Threadripper PRO 9965WX, a 24-core Zen 5 workstation part, dominates in single-threaded performance and many latency-sensitive tasks. The head-to-head results show the Threadripper PRO winning 11 of 17 tests, but the EPYC 7663's victories are often decisive, making the choice heavily dependent on the target workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data reveals a stark division of labor between these two processors. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is the clear winner in Cinebench rendering workloads, taking all six multi-core and single-core tests. Its lead is consistent, with the Threadripper PRO finishing roughly 13.8% ahead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, and a similar margin in the single-core versions. This indicates that for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other tasks that scale well with high-frequency cores, the Threadripper PRO is the superior choice.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 7663 is the champion in several PassMark server-oriented benchmarks. It wins decisively in integer math, scoring 468096 versus 349195, a 34.1% advantage. It also leads in data encryption by a massive 68.9%, random string sorting by 23.2%, and floating-point math by 9.5%. These wins suggest the EPYC 7663 is better suited for database workloads, cryptography, and scientific simulations that rely on massive parallel integer or floating-point operations. The EPYC 7663 also wins in PassMark physics, though by a smaller margin of 6.5%.

The Threadripper PRO 9965WX takes the remaining wins, including PassMark single-thread performance, where it is 42.7% ahead, and extended instructions, where it leads by 32.2%. Its 11 total wins versus the EPYC's 6 indicate a broader advantage across general-purpose and client-style workloads, but the EPYC's specific wins are in areas where its core count provides an insurmountable advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, explaining their divergent benchmark profiles. The EPYC 7663 is built on the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Milan, using a 7 nm process from TSMC. It packs 56 cores and 112 threads, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The processor is composed of 8 dies, each measuring 81 mm², totaling 33,200 million transistors. It supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX uses the newer Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, manufactured on a 4 nm process. It has just 24 cores and 48 threads, but with much higher clocks: a 4.20 GHz base and a 5.40 GHz boost. Its cache is per-core 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2, but its total L3 is smaller at 128 MB. The processor uses 4 dies of 70.6 mm² each, with 33,260 million transistors. It supports DDR5 memory over an eight-channel bus, doubling bandwidth to 409.6 GB/s, and provides 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes. The Threadripper PRO also has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked.

These differences directly explain the performance results. The EPYC's 56 cores provide a raw parallel advantage, but its lower clocks and older architecture hurt it in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks. The Threadripper PRO's higher clocks and newer Zen 5 cores give it a massive per-thread advantage, as seen in the 42.7% lead in PassMark single-thread. Meanwhile, the EPYC's larger L3 cache and higher core count help in workloads like integer math and encryption, where data can be partitioned across many cores.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the choice between these two processors comes down to workload type. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is the better choice for users running Cinebench-style rendering, video editing, and any software that benefits from high single-core speed and high boost clocks. Its consistent 13.8% lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with a 42.7% advantage in single-thread PassMark, makes it the superior workstation CPU for creative professionals.

The AMD EPYC 7663 is the better option for server environments where specific multi-threaded workloads dominate. Its 34.1% lead in integer math, 68.9% lead in data encryption, and 23.2% lead in random string sorting make it ideal for database servers, security applications, and data processing pipelines. The EPYC's 98th percentile ranking among all CPUs, identical to the Threadripper PRO, shows both are top-tier, but the EPYC's wins are in areas where core count trumps clock speed.

For a mixed workload, the Threadripper PRO's 11 wins versus 6 suggests it is more versatile. However, if a workload is known to be integer-heavy or encryption-heavy, the EPYC 7663's advantages are too large to ignore. The Threadripper PRO's higher TDP of 350 W versus the EPYC's 240 W also indicates a trade-off in power efficiency, though the EPYC's older architecture may offset this in practice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is significantly faster, with a 42.7% lead in PassMark single-thread (4551 vs 2606) and a 13.8-13.9% lead in all Cinebench single-core tests.

Q: Does the EPYC 7663 win any multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7663 wins the PassMark integer math test by 34.1%, data encryption by 68.9%, and random string sorting by 23.2%, despite losing all Cinebench multi-core tests.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9965WX supports DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7663 supports DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, giving the Threadripper PRO a 2x theoretical advantage.

Q: How do their core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads, giving the EPYC a 32-core advantage.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9965WX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7663's 3.50 GHz, a difference of 1.90 GHz.

Q: Are both processors in the 98th percentile of all CPUs?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 7663 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX rank in the 98th percentile versus all CPUs, indicating they are both top-tier performers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX comes in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4551 against the EPYC's 2606, a 42.7% delta. This is the largest percentage gap in any test, highlighting the enormous per-core performance advantage of the Zen 5 architecture. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 80976 versus 69773, a 13.8% lead, proving its 24 cores are more efficient than the EPYC's 56 cores in this rendering workload.

The AMD EPYC 7663's most significant win is in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 111725 versus 66155, a 68.9% advantage. This suggests the EPYC's many cores and large cache are particularly effective for cryptographic operations. In PassMark integer math, the EPYC scores 468096 versus 349195, a 34.1% lead, and in random string sorting, it wins 184367 to 149617, a 23.2% margin. These results show the EPYC's parallel strength in data manipulation tasks.

Other notable wins include the EPYC's 9.5% lead in floating-point math (251535 vs 229685) and a 6.5% lead in physics (8020 vs 7529). The Threadripper PRO counters with wins in extended instructions (108753 vs 73719, a 32.2% lead) and find prime numbers (752 vs 676, a 10.1% lead). The overall score average reflects this split: the EPYC 7663 has an average benchmark score of 161973, while the Threadripper PRO sits at 147009, though both are within 1% of their nearest rivals, showing they are both competitive in their respective market segments.