AMD EPYC 8224P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX and the AMD EPYC 8224P occupy different corners of the server and workstation market, yet their aggregate benchmark scores place them remarkably close together. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX posts an average benchmark score of 76,513, while the EPYC 8224P sits just behind at 75,582, a difference of roughly 1.2%. Both processors hold the 95th percentile among all tested CPUs, indicating that despite their architectural divergences, they land in the same performance tier. The data reveals a fascinating split: the Threadripper wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, but the EPYC takes the three that matter most for certain enterprise workloads. This is not a simple story of one chip being faster everywhere; it is a tale of specialization, where raw core counts and dense compute capabilities produce distinct profiles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the Threadripper PRO 9945WX’s dominance in Cinebench workloads. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Threadripper wins with a consistent delta of approximately 25.2%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 48,325 against the EPYC’s 38,607, and in single-core it posts 6,822 versus 5,450. The same margin holds for R15 and R20, with multi-core scores of 4,871 and 20,296 respectively, against the EPYC’s 3,891 and 16,214. This uniformity suggests a fundamental throughput advantage that scales across rendering and simulation tasks.

The single-threaded PassMark tests reveal an even larger gap. The Threadripper delivers 4,573 points in PassMark single-thread, a 95.5% improvement over the EPYC’s 2,339. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it underscores the clock speed disparity between the two parts. The Threadripper’s base clock of 4.70 GHz and boost of 5.40 GHz dwarf the EPYC’s 2.55 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, making the EPYC’s lower per-core performance an expected outcome.

However, the EPYC 8224P strikes back in specific data-centric tests. In PassMark data compression, the EPYC scores 702,065, edging out the Threadripper’s 671,963 by 4.3%. Data encryption shows a more pronounced win for the EPYC at 46,742 versus 36,540, a 21.8% advantage. Integer math is essentially a tie, with the EPYC at 185,556 and the Threadripper at 185,421, a 0.1% difference that favors the EPYC only by a rounding error. These three wins are not trivial; they point to the EPYC’s 24 cores and 48 threads being better suited to parallelizable data operations that do not rely heavily on single-thread clock speed.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the clear winner for workloads that depend on high clock speeds and per-core efficiency. Its PassMark physics score of 6,118 versus the EPYC’s 3,236 represents an 89.1% advantage, making it the better choice for simulation and physics-based compute. Floating point math also favors the Threadripper at 111,566 versus 104,698, a 6.6% lead. Extended instruction sets, which include AVX and similar operations, go to the Threadripper by 24.7%, with scores of 54,406 against 43,614. Prime number finding, a test that stresses integer throughput and cache latency, shows the Threadripper at 335 versus 206, a 62.6% margin. Random string sorting is closer, with the Threadripper at 84,498 versus 81,674, a 3.5% win.

The EPYC 8224P’s wins are concentrated in data encryption and compression, where its higher core count and thread count allow it to process multiple streams simultaneously. Encryption at 46,742 versus 36,540 is a substantial 21.8% lead, and compression at 702,065 versus 671,963 shows a 4.3% edge. These are precisely the workloads found in database servers, storage systems, and network appliances. The EPYC’s 48 threads also keep integer math virtually tied with the Threadripper despite the latter’s much higher clocks, suggesting that the extra cores compensate for the clock deficit in this specific test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Threadripper PRO 9945WX uses the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with the codename Shimada Peak. The EPYC 8224P uses Zen 4c on a 5 nm process, with the codename Siena. The Threadripper packs 16,630 million transistors across a die size of 2x 70.6 mm², while the EPYC has 17,750 million transistors on a 2x 73 mm² die. The Threadripper’s smaller transistor count on a denser process node suggests a design focused on higher clock speeds, while the EPYC’s larger transistor count on a less dense node indicates a more power-efficient, core-heavy design.

Both processors share the same L1 cache at 64 KB per core and L2 at 1 MB per core, and both have 64 MB of L3 cache. However, the Threadripper specifies its L3 as simply 64 MB, while the EPYC lists it as 64 MB shared. The Threadripper is built on the AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses Socket SP6. The Threadripper supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, whereas the EPYC uses six-channel DDR5 with 230.4 GB/s. This memory bandwidth difference is critical for workloads that stream large datasets. The Threadripper also offers 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, compared to the EPYC’s 96 lanes, and its multiplier is unlocked, while the EPYC’s is not. The EPYC was released on 2023-09-17, while the Threadripper arrived on 2025-06-30, reflecting two different product cycles.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has a base clock of 4.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The EPYC 8224P has a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 8224P has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9945WX has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Which chip has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, versus the EPYC 8224P’s six-channel DDR5 at 230.4 GB/s.

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

A: The largest delta is in PassMark single-thread performance, where the Threadripper scores 4,573 versus the EPYC’s 2,339, a 95.5% advantage.

Q: Are there workloads where the EPYC 8224P wins?

A: Yes, the EPYC wins in data compression by 4.3%, data encryption by 21.8%, and integer math by 0.1%.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9945WX has a TDP of 350 watts, while the EPYC 8224P has a TDP of 160 watts.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX | AMD EPYC 8224P |

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

| Cores | 12 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 4.70 GHz | 2.55 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 160 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket SP6 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4c |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Siena |

| Generation | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5 (Shimada Peak)) | EPYC (Zen 4c (Siena)) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 16,630 million | 17,750 million |

| Die Size | 2x 70.6 mm² | 2x 73 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 64 MB | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Six-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 230.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 96 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Release Date | 2025-06-30 | 2023-09-17 |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | $855 |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear split. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the superior choice for any workload that rewards high clock speeds, per-core efficiency, and memory bandwidth. Its 25.2% lead across all Cinebench tests, 95.5% lead in single-thread PassMark, and 89.1% lead in physics make it the obvious pick for rendering, simulation, and general workstation tasks. The Threadripper’s 409.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also provide a more expansive I/O platform.

The AMD EPYC 8224P, on the other hand, is tailored for data-centric server workloads. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with a lower 160 W TDP, make it a power-efficient choice for encryption, compression, and integer-heavy operations. The 21.8% encryption lead and 4.3% compression lead indicate that this chip is optimized for throughput on parallel data streams rather than latency-sensitive single-thread tasks. Its launch MSRP of $855 also positions it as a distinct market offering, though pricing should not be the sole decision factor.

For a workstation user running Cinebench or physics simulations, the Threadripper PRO 9945WX is the clear winner, delivering roughly a quarter more performance across multi-threaded render tests. For a server administrator deploying a database or storage appliance that handles constant data encryption and compression, the EPYC 8224P’s core count and lower power draw make it the more appropriate pick. The benchmark data shows no single overall winner; it shows two tools designed for different jobs, each excelling where the other falls short.