AMD EPYC 7C13 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and AMD EPYC 7C13 are both 64-core, 128-thread monsters from AMD, yet they target different corners of the professional market. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX, a Castle Peak desktop part on Socket WRX8, and the EPYC 7C13, a Milan server chip on Socket SP3, share the same 7nm TSMC process and eight-channel DDR4 memory support, but their benchmark results reveal distinct personalities. The data shows the Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins 14 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC 7C13 takes only 3, yet those wins are narrow and telling. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels, what separates them architecturally, and how their scores stack up in real workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the clear champion in rendering and content creation workloads, where its higher clock speeds pay dividends. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 71338 against the EPYC’s 64873, a 10% advantage that repeats across every Cinebench iteration—R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-core. This pattern holds for PassMark’s data compression test, where the Threadripper’s 1841292 score beats the EPYC’s 1562251 by 17.9%, and for random string sorting, where it leads 188574 to 131361, a massive 43.6% gap. The Threadripper also wins in data encryption (124433 vs 114769, 8.4% ahead), extended instructions (106423 vs 85034, 25.2% ahead), physics (5498 vs 4904, 12.1% ahead), and floating-point math (277715 vs 266846, 4.1% ahead). These are workloads that favor raw frequency and responsive single-thread performance, and the Threadripper’s 4.20 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC’s 3.68 GHz shows in every result.

The EPYC 7C13’s wins are narrower and more specialized. It edges out the Threadripper in PassMark integer math, scoring 492554 against 490116, a marginal 0.5% lead. It also wins both PassMark single-thread tests with a score of 2618 versus 2595, a 0.9% advantage. These are the only three wins for the EPYC, and they suggest a slight edge in integer-heavy, single-threaded code—likely a benefit of its Zen 3 architecture’s improved IPC. However, the EPYC’s wins are so small that they hardly offset the Threadripper’s dominance elsewhere. In practice, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX is the better choice for users who prioritize rendering, compression, and mixed floating-point workloads, while the EPYC 7C13 offers a marginal lead in specific integer and single-thread tasks, which may matter in certain database or scripting environments.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Zen generations, which explains much of their performance split. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses Zen 2, codenamed Castle Peak, while the EPYC 7C13 uses Zen 3, codenamed Milan. Both are built on TSMC’s 7nm process, but the EPYC packs more transistors—33,200 million versus 30,400 million—across a larger die area of 8x 81 mm² compared to the Threadripper’s 8x 74 mm². The extra transistors in the EPYC reflect Zen 3’s redesigned core, which offers higher instructions per clock (IPC) than Zen 2. That IPC advantage is why the EPYC wins single-thread PassMark despite a lower boost clock.

Cache configurations are also nearly identical but not quite. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, and both feature 256 MB of L3 cache. The Threadripper lists its L3 as 256 MB flat, while the EPYC specifies 256 MB as shared. In practice, this means similar cache capacity, but Zen 3’s unified L3 design (versus Zen 2’s split design) allows faster access across core complexes, which contributes to the EPYC’s integer performance edge. The memory subsystem is identical on paper: both support DDR4, run eight-channel, and deliver 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both, which is critical for server and workstation stability.

The socket and platform differences are stark. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP3. The Threadripper is classified as a desktop part, whereas the EPYC is a server/workstation chip. Both offer PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes from the CPU, so expansion capability is equivalent, but the platforms they plug into serve different purposes: WRX8 for single-socket workstations, SP3 for multi-socket servers. The Threadripper’s base clock is 2.70 GHz, notably higher than the EPYC’s 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz), but the EPYC’s boost clock of 3.68 GHz is lower than the Threadripper’s 4.20 GHz. The Threadripper also has a higher TDP at 280 watts versus the EPYC’s 225 watts, reflecting its more aggressive clocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest wins for the Threadripper PRO 3995WX come in PassMark random string sorting, where it scores 188574 against the EPYC’s 131361—a 43.6% lead that is the largest delta of any test. This workload is memory-latency sensitive, and the Threadripper’s higher clocks likely mitigate stalls. PassMark extended instructions also favor the Threadripper heavily: 106423 versus 85034, a 25.2% gap. Data compression is another strong suit, with the Threadripper leading 1841292 to 1562251, a 17.9% advantage. These are not small margins; they indicate workloads where the Threadripper’s frequency advantage overcomes the EPYC’s IPC improvements.

Across the Cinebench suite, the Threadripper wins every test by a consistent 10% delta. In R15 multi-core, it scores 7190 versus 6539; in R15 single-core, 1014 versus 923 (9.9%); in R20 multi-core, 29961 versus 27246; in R20 single-core, 4229 versus 3846; in R23 multi-core, 71338 versus 64873; and in R23 single-core, 10071 versus 9158. This uniformity suggests that Cinebench’s rendering workload responds more to clock speed than to Zen 3’s architectural changes. The Threadripper also wins PassMark multithread by 10% (83928 versus 76322) and physics by 12.1% (5498 versus 4904), reinforcing its strength in threaded compute.

The EPYC 7C13’s wins are the flip side. In PassMark integer math, it scores 492554 against the Threadripper’s 490116, a 0.5% edge that is essentially a tie. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 2618 against 2595, a 0.9% lead. These results indicate that Zen 3’s IPC advantage is real but modest in these specific tests. The EPYC also comes close in floating-point math, losing 266846 to 277715 (4.1% behind), which is its best showing in a multi-threaded workload. Overall, the head-to-head data shows the Threadripper winning by double digits in 10 of 17 tests, while the EPYC’s largest win is under 1%, making the Threadripper the decisive overall performer in this comparison.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets show several fields where the two processors diverge. The base clock is a major difference: the Threadripper runs at 2.70 GHz, while the EPYC runs at 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz). Boost clocks also differ, with the Threadripper hitting 4.20 GHz versus the EPYC’s 3.68 GHz. TDP is another split: the Threadripper draws 280 watts, the EPYC 225 watts. The sockets are different—WRX8 for the Threadripper, SP3 for the EPYC—as are the architectures (Zen 2 Castle Peak versus Zen 3 Milan) and codenames.

Transistor counts differ, with the EPYC’s 33,200 million exceeding the Threadripper’s 30,400 million. Die sizes also vary: the EPYC uses 8x 81 mm², the Threadripper 8x 74 mm². Cache is listed differently, though both total 256 MB of L3; the Threadripper lists it as 256 MB, while the EPYC specifies 256 MB as shared. The market segment differs—desktop for the Threadripper, server/workstation for the EPYC. The Threadripper has a release date of 2020-07-13 and a launch MSRP of $5489, while the EPYC has no release date or MSRP listed. Part numbers are distinct: 100-000000087100-100000087WOF for the Threadripper, 100-000000315 for the EPYC. Both are active in production, neither has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX boosts to 4.20 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 7C13 boosts to 3.68 GHz.

Q: How much does the Threadripper lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper scores 71338 against the EPYC’s 64873, a 10% advantage.

Q: In which tests does the EPYC 7C13 win?

A: The EPYC wins PassMark integer math (492554 vs 490116, 0.5% ahead) and both PassMark single-thread tests (2618 vs 2595, 0.9% ahead).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark random string sorting, where the Threadripper scores 188574 versus the EPYC’s 131361, a 43.6% lead.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both support DDR4, run eight-channel, and provide 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, with ECC support on both.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has a TDP of 280 watts, while the EPYC 7C13 has a TDP of 225 watts.