AMD EPYC 7663 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and AMD EPYC 7663 are both high-core-count server/workstation processors, but they target different generations and design philosophies. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is a Zen 5 part built on a 4 nm process, while the EPYC 7663 is a Zen 3 part on 7 nm. Benchmark data shows the newer Threadripper wins 13 of 17 head-to-head tests, with the EPYC retaining wins in four specific workloads. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX delivers a 34.1% lead across all Cinebench tests, but the EPYC 7663 counters with a 23.9% advantage in data encryption and a 9.1% edge in physics simulations.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 7663 has 56 cores and 112 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads.

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

A: In PassMark single-thread testing, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX scores 4408 versus the EPYC 7663's 2606, a 69.1% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows a similar 34.1% gap, with scores of 13207 and 9850 respectively.

Q: Does the EPYC 7663 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes. The EPYC 7663 wins PassMark data encryption (111725 vs 85035, 23.9% higher), find prime numbers (676 vs 620), integer math (468096 vs 461724), and physics (8020 vs 7288, 9.1% higher).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, double the EPYC 7663's DDR4 bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both use an eight-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX boosts to 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC 7663's 3.50 GHz. The base clocks are 4.00 GHz and 2.00 GHz respectively.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 7663 is locked.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent a significant generational leap in AMD's design. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The EPYC 7663 relies on the older Zen 3 architecture with the Milan codename, manufactured on a 7 nm process. This process shrink allows the Threadripper to pack 33,260 million transistors across a die size of 4x 70.6 mm², while the EPYC uses 33,200 million transistors across a larger 8x 81 mm² footprint.

Cache layouts differ substantially. Both processors feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the Threadripper PRO 9975WX offers 1 MB of L2 cache per core versus the EPYC's 512 KB per core. Total L3 cache is reversed: the EPYC 7663 has 256 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 128 MB. The EPYC's larger L3 pool reflects its higher core count, while the Threadripper's larger per-core L2 is optimized for higher clock speeds.

Memory support marks a clear generational split. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC 7663 is limited to DDR4 at 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also advances: the Threadripper offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the EPYC 7663 provides Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses Socket SP3.

The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a TDP of 350 W, higher than the EPYC's 240 W. It also launched in 2025 with a launch MSRP of $4099, while the EPYC 7663 launched in 2021 at $6366. The Threadripper is part of the 9000 series and Ryzen Threadripper generation, while the EPYC belongs to the 7003 series. Both target the server/workstation market segment and remain in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9975WX dominates in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads, making it the choice for applications that prioritize per-core performance. Its 69.1% lead in PassMark single-thread and 34.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core demonstrate a massive advantage in latency-sensitive tasks. The 86.8% edge in PassMark extended instructions suggests superior vector and SIMD processing capabilities, which benefits scientific computing and media encoding. Data compression also favors the Threadripper by 13.7%, and floating-point math runs 21.2% faster.

The EPYC 7663 carves out wins in specific throughput-oriented workloads. Its 23.9% advantage in data encryption suggests stronger cryptographic acceleration, which matters for security-focused server applications. The physics benchmark shows a 9.1% lead, indicating better performance in certain simulation workloads. Integer math is nearly tied, with the EPYC ahead by just 1.4%. Prime number finding also favors the EPYC by 8.3%, a niche but notable result.

For multithreaded rendering workloads like Cinebench, the Threadripper wins decisively despite having fewer cores. The 34.1% margin across R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests indicates that Zen 5's per-core efficiency more than compensates for the 24-core deficit. PassMark multithread follows the same pattern, with the Threadripper ahead by 27.8%. Random string sorting is essentially a tie, with the Threadripper up by only 2%.

Users should choose the Threadripper PRO 9975WX for workstation tasks like 3D rendering, code compilation, and scientific simulation where single-thread speed and memory bandwidth matter. The EPYC 7663 makes more sense for server deployments focused on encryption-heavy workloads, physics simulations, or applications that can exploit its 56 cores and larger shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX | AMD EPYC 7663 |

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

| Cores | 32 | 56 |

| Threads | 64 | 112 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 240 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket SP3 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 3 |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Milan |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | 33,200 million |

| Die Size | 4x 70.6 mm² | 8x 81 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

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

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes | Gen 4, 128 Lanes |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $4099 | $6366 |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2021-03-14 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 9975WX achieves an identical 34.1% advantage across all six Cinebench tests. In R15 multicore, it scores 9430 against the EPYC's 7032; R15 single-core shows 1331 versus 992. R20 multicore delivers 39292 versus 29304, and R20 single-core 5546 versus 4137. R23 multicore reaches 93553 versus 69773, with single-core at 13207 versus 9850. This consistent margin across every Cinebench iteration indicates the Threadripper's architectural efficiency is uniform regardless of benchmark version.

PassMark results reveal a more nuanced picture. The biggest Threadripper win is extended instructions, where 137733 beats 73719 by 86.8%. Single-thread performance follows at 4408 versus 2606, a 69.1% gap. Multithread shows 104902 versus 82087, a 27.8% lead. Floating-point math runs 21.2% faster at 304833 versus 251535. Data compression favors the Threadripper by 13.7% (1644573 vs 1447020), while random string sorting is nearly even at 188014 versus 184367.

The EPYC 7663's wins are concentrated in specific areas. Data encryption shows its largest advantage: 111725 versus 85035, a 23.9% margin. Physics runs 9.1% faster at 8020 versus 7288. Prime number finding edges out 676 versus 620, an 8.3% lead. Integer math is the closest contest at 468096 versus 461724, with the EPYC ahead by only 1.4%.

The overall score totals reflect the Threadripper's dominance: its average benchmark score of 182700 sits well above the EPYC's 161973. Both processors rank in the 98th percentile among all CPUs, but the Threadripper sits 12.8% higher in average score. The Threadripper's nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 8534P at 185092, while the EPYC 7663's closest competitor is the AMD EPYC 9375F at 162497. These benchmark results confirm that the Threadripper PRO 9975WX delivers superior performance in most scenarios, while the EPYC 7663 remains competitive only in specialized workloads where its core count and cache configuration matter more than clock speed.