AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, which wins 16 of the 17 recorded head-to-head tests. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin: across almost every Cinebench and Passmark workload, the Threadripper PRO holds a lead of roughly 32% or more. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 64,021 against the EPYC 8324P's 48,557, a 31.8% advantage. Single-core performance tells the same story, with the Threadripper PRO posting 9,038 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 6,855 for the EPYC, again a 31.8% gap.

The widest margin appears in Passmark floating point math, where the Threadripper PRO records 202,363 versus 139,022, a 45.6% difference. Integer math follows closely at 45% ahead, with scores of 360,156 and 248,447 respectively. These two results suggest the Zen 3 architecture in the Threadripper PRO handles arithmetic-heavy workloads with unusual efficiency relative to the Zen 4c-based EPYC. Even in data compression, which often favors server-oriented designs, the Threadripper PRO leads by 31.9%, scoring 1,293,784 against 980,907.

The EPYC 8324P's lone victory comes in Passmark physics, where it scores 4,637 versus 4,360, a 6% advantage. This is a narrow win, but it is the only test where the EPYC demonstrates superiority. It is notably this is the only benchmark in the entire dataset where the EPYC's lower clock speeds do not hold it back, suggesting a specific workload characteristic that favors its design.

Single-thread performance deserves special attention. In Passmark single-thread, the Threadripper PRO scores 3,323 against 2,367, a 40.4% lead. This is one of the largest per-core gaps in the dataset, and it aligns with the clock speed difference: the Threadripper PRO boosts to 4.50 GHz while the EPYC tops out at 3.00 GHz. The Cinebench R15 single-core test shows a 31.9% lead (910 vs 690), which is slightly smaller but still substantial. The consistent 8 to 9 percentage point difference between the Cinebench and Passmark single-thread results hints that the EPYC's Zen 4c cores are not simply slower clocks, they are also less efficient per cycle in certain integer workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses Zen 3 architecture on a 7 nm process from TSMC, with a codename of Chagall PRO. The EPYC 8324P uses Zen 4c on a 5 nm process, codenamed Siena. The transistor counts illustrate the density shift: the Threadripper PRO packs 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies, while the EPYC integrates 35,500 million transistors across four 73 mm² dies. The EPYC's smaller dies with more than double the transistors reflect the denser Zen 4c design, which prioritizes core count per area over raw clock speed.

Cache configurations differ notably in L2. The Threadripper PRO has 512 KB of L2 per core, while the EPYC has 1 MB per core. L1 is identical at 64 KB per core, and both have 128 MB of L3. The larger L2 in the EPYC could help mitigate its lower clock speeds in some workloads, though the benchmark data does not show this advantage materializing except in the physics test. The EPYC's L3 is listed as shared, while the Threadripper PRO's is not explicitly labeled, but the total capacity is the same.

Memory support is a major divergence. The Threadripper PRO uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a six-channel bus, achieving 230.4 GB/s. Despite fewer channels, the EPYC's newer memory standard provides 12.5% more bandwidth, which is a modest advantage for memory-intensive server tasks. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Threadripper PRO offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 96 lanes. The EPYC's newer PCIe generation doubles the per-lane bandwidth, but the Threadripper PRO has 33% more lanes, which matters for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the clear choice for compute-heavy, single-thread-sensitive workloads. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock, versus the EPYC's 3.00 GHz, gives it a 40.4% lead in Passmark single-thread and a 31.8% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core. This makes it better suited for applications that rely on per-core performance, such as legacy software, certain simulation tools, or tasks with limited parallelization. Its 45.6% lead in floating point math and 45% lead in integer math also make it the superior option for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload dominated by arithmetic operations.

The EPYC 8324P's only win is in Passmark physics, where it scores 4,637 versus 4,360. This 6% advantage suggests that physics simulations, which often involve specific instruction patterns and memory access behavior, can benefit from the EPYC's newer architecture and denser transistor layout. The EPYC also offers advantages that are not captured in the benchmark scores: DDR5 memory support with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, and a lower TDP of 180 watts versus the Threadripper PRO's 280 watts. For server deployments where power efficiency and modern I/O matter more than raw compute, the EPYC wins on those qualitative grounds.

The Threadripper PRO's 8.7% lead in random string sorting (123,527 vs 113,610) suggests it handles data manipulation tasks better, while its 27.3% lead in data encryption (80,453 vs 63,195) indicates stronger cryptographic performance. The EPYC's higher L2 cache per core does not translate into wins in these data-heavy workloads, which is a surprising result given the architectural assumptions.

Specification Differences

The two processors share several core specifications: both have 32 cores, 64 threads, 128 MB of L3 cache, and support ECC memory. They are both active production parts for the server/workstation market, and neither has an unlocked multiplier or integrated graphics.

Key differences include base clock (3.60 GHz vs 2.65 GHz), boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.00 GHz), and TDP (280 W vs 180 W). The Threadripper PRO uses the AMD Socket WRX8, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6. Process nodes differ (7 nm vs 5 nm), as do transistor counts (16,600 million vs 35,500 million) and die sizes (4x 81 mm² vs 4x 73 mm²). Memory support differs (DDR4 vs DDR5), memory bus width (eight-channel vs six-channel), and memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s vs 230.4 GB/s). PCIe capabilities differ (Gen 4, 128 lanes vs Gen 5, 96 lanes). The Threadripper PRO was released on 2022-03-07, while the EPYC followed on 2023-09-17.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, compared to the AMD EPYC 8324P's base of 2.65 GHz and boost of 3.00 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 8324P provides 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth over six DDR5 channels, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX provides 204.8 GB/s over eight DDR4 channels.

Q: How do they compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO leads by 31.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (64,021 vs 48,557) and by 31.8% in Passmark multithread (75,319 vs 57,127).

Q: Does the EPYC win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8324P wins Passmark physics with a score of 4,637 versus 4,360, a 6% advantage.

Q: What are the PCIe lane differences?

A: The Threadripper PRO offers 128 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the EPYC offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes.

Q: Which processor has more L2 cache per core?

A: The EPYC 8324P has 1 MB of L2 per core, double the 512 KB per core found in the Threadripper PRO 5975WX.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX outperforms the AMD EPYC 8324P in 16 of 17 tests, with leads ranging from 8.7% in random string sorting to 45.6% in floating point math. Its higher clock speeds and Zen 3 architecture dominate nearly every measurable workload, from single-threaded Cinebench to multi-threaded Passmark. The only exception is Passmark physics, where the EPYC's 6% edge suggests a niche application for its Zen 4c design.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the clear pick. Its 40.4% single-thread lead and 45% integer math advantage make it suitable for workstation tasks where per-core speed is critical. The EPYC 8324P, however, offers compelling strengths outside the benchmark suite: DDR5 memory with higher bandwidth, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, lower power consumption (180 W vs 280 W), and a more recent release date. These factors matter for server deployments where power efficiency, modern I/O, and memory technology weigh as heavily as raw compute scores.

The data suggests a straightforward decision framework. If the workload is compute-bound and benefits from high clock speeds, the Threadripper PRO is the superior choice, and the 31.8% multi-thread lead alone justifies its selection. If the workload involves physics simulation, requires the latest memory and PCIe standards, or operates under strict power constraints, the EPYC's narrow physics win and architectural advantages become relevant. The recorded benchmark results do not show a scenario where the EPYC's DDR5 bandwidth or larger L2 cache translate into a broad performance advantage, so those features must be evaluated on their own merits rather than on benchmark outcomes.