AMD EPYC 7C13 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and AMD EPYC 7C13 represent two very different philosophies for high-core-count computing. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is a 32-core, 64-thread Zen 5 part built for workstations, while the EPYC 7C13 is a 64-core, 128-thread Zen 3 part aimed squarely at servers. The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the workstation chip, with the Threadripper winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, including every Cinebench test by a margin of 44.2%.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the superior performer in almost every measurable way, despite having half the core count of the EPYC 7C13. Its Zen 5 architecture, newer 4 nm process node, and dramatically higher clock speeds allow it to outpace the older Zen 3 part across the board. The Threadripper wins the multithreaded Passmark test by 37.4% and the single-thread test by 68.4%, showing that its advantage is not just about clock speed but also about architectural efficiency. For any workload that benefits from high per-core performance or high memory bandwidth, the Threadripper is the clear choice.

The EPYC 7C13 is not without its strengths. It wins two specific benchmarks: data encryption (by 25.9%) and integer math (by 6.3%). These wins suggest that its 64 cores can still be leveraged effectively in workloads that scale perfectly with core count and rely on raw integer throughput. However, these two wins are narrow compared to the Threadripper’s sweeping dominance in 15 other tests. For a user deciding between these two, the choice depends on whether the workload is heavily parallel integer math and encryption, or if it involves a broader mix of rendering, physics, and general-purpose computing. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the better all-rounder, and its launch MSRP is $4099.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are separated by two full generations of AMD architecture. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It features 33,260 million transistors across 4x 70.6 mm² dies. In contrast, the EPYC 7C13 uses the Zen 3 architecture with the codename Milan, built on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC, with 33,200 million transistors spread across 8x 81 mm² dies. The process node difference is significant, as the smaller 4 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

Cache configurations also differ substantially. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a total of 128 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC 7C13 has the same 64 KB of L1 per core but only 512 KB of L2 per core, and it compensates with a larger 256 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the EPYC has more total cache, but the Threadripper’s per-core L2 is twice as large, which can benefit single-threaded performance.

Memory support is another major divider. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports DDR5 memory with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering a massive 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC 7C13 supports DDR4 memory, also with an eight-channel bus, but its bandwidth is capped at 204.8 GB/s. This is a 100% difference in theoretical memory bandwidth, which heavily favors the Threadripper in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Both chips support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Threadripper offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The Threadripper is also multiplier-unlocked, whereas the EPYC is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 7C13 has 64 cores and 128 threads, which is double the 32 cores and 64 threads of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX.

Q: Why does the Threadripper with half the cores win most benchmarks?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX benefits from a newer Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, with base and boost clocks of 4.00 GHz and 5.40 GHz, respectively. The EPYC 7C13 runs at much lower clocks of 2000.00 MHz base and 3.68 GHz boost, which explains its performance deficit despite having more cores.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the EPYC 7C13 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. This gives the Threadripper exactly double the memory bandwidth.

Q: Does the EPYC 7C13 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the EPYC 7C13 wins two head-to-head tests: Passmark data encryption by 25.9% and Passmark integer math by 6.3%.

Q: What is the TDP and socket for each?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a TDP of 350 W and uses the AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC 7C13 has a lower TDP of 225 W and uses the AMD Socket SP3.

Q: Which processor has a higher single-thread score?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a significantly higher single-thread score, winning the Passmark single-thread test with a score of 4408 versus 2618 for the EPYC 7C13, a delta of 68.4%.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and the AMD EPYC 7C13:

• Cores: 32 (Threadripper) vs 64 (EPYC)
• Threads: 64 (Threadripper) vs 128 (EPYC)
• Base Clock: 4.00 GHz (Threadripper) vs 2000.00 MHz (EPYC)
• Boost Clock: 5.40 GHz (Threadripper) vs 3.68 GHz (EPYC)
• TDP: 350 W (Threadripper) vs 225 W (EPYC)
• Socket: AMD Socket sTR5 (Threadripper) vs AMD Socket SP3 (EPYC)
• Architecture: Zen 5 (Threadripper) vs Zen 3 (EPYC)
• Process Node: 4 nm (Threadripper) vs 7 nm (EPYC)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (Threadripper) vs 512 KB per core (EPYC)
• L3 Cache: 128 MB (Threadripper) vs 256 MB shared (EPYC)
• Memory Support: DDR5 (Threadripper) vs DDR4 (EPYC)
• Memory Bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s (Threadripper) vs 204.8 GB/s (EPYC)
• PCIe: Gen 5, 128 Lanes (Threadripper) vs Gen 4, 128 Lanes (EPYC)
• Multiplier: Unlocked (Threadripper) vs Locked (EPYC)
• Release Date: 2025-07-22 (Threadripper) vs null (EPYC)
• Launch MSRP: $4099 (Threadripper) vs null (EPYC)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are a total rout. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX wins both multi-core and single-core tests by exactly 44.2% each time. For example, in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Threadripper scores 93553 against the EPYC’s 64873, and in single-core it scores 13207 versus 9158. This consistency across all three Cinebench versions and both core-count scenarios indicates a fundamental architectural advantage that scales from one thread to many.

The Passmark suite shows a more nuanced picture. The Threadripper wins the multi-thread test with a score of 104902 versus 76322, a 37.4% lead. Its dominance is most pronounced in the single-thread test, where it scores 4408 against 2618, a massive 68.4% advantage. The extended instructions test also goes to the Threadripper, with a 62% lead (137733 vs 85034). The physics test shows a 48.6% win for the Threadripper (7288 vs 4904), and random string sorting goes to the Threadripper by 43.1% (188014 vs 131361).

The EPYC 7C13’s only victories are in data encryption and integer math. In data encryption, the EPYC scores 114769 versus the Threadripper’s 85035, a 25.9% win. In integer math, the EPYC scores 492554 versus 461724, a 6.3% win. These results suggest that the EPYC’s 64 cores can be harnessed for specific workloads that do not rely on memory bandwidth or high clock speeds. However, the Threadripper wins the floating point math test by 14.2% (304833 vs 266846) and the find prime numbers test by 15% (620 vs 539), showing that its per-core strength extends to most computational tasks. The data compression test is a close call, with the Threadripper winning by 5.3% (1644573 vs 1562251). Overall, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, and its average benchmark score of 182700 places it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the EPYC’s average score of 167788, also in the 98th percentile.