AMD EPYC 8324P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 8324P and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX represent two fundamentally different approaches to high-end x86 computing. The EPYC 8324P, built on the Zen 4c architecture for dense server workloads, offers 32 cores and 64 threads. In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 9955WX, utilizing the newer Zen 5 architecture, provides 16 cores and 32 threads but at significantly higher clock speeds. Benchmark data reveals a distinct split: the Threadripper wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC secures 5 victories. However, the overall average benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the EPYC at 103329 and the Threadripper at 100227, a delta of just 3.1%. This indicates that the "better" processor depends entirely on the specific workload characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 8324P establishes its dominance in specific server-oriented and data-heavy tasks. Its most decisive victory comes in data encryption, where it scores 63195 against the Threadripper's 48476, a substantial 30.4% advantage. This suggests the EPYC's architecture is better optimized for cryptographic workloads. Additionally, the EPYC wins in data compression with a score of 980907 versus 890743 (10.1% ahead), making it the stronger choice for file archiving and database operations that rely on compression algorithms. The EPYC also edges out the Threadripper in integer math (248447 vs 246111, a 0.9% margin), random string sorting (113610 vs 109915, 3.4% ahead), and find prime numbers (347 vs 340, a 2.1% advantage). These wins, while sometimes narrow, collectively point to the EPYC's strength in sustained, multi-threaded throughput for non-floating-point operations.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX, conversely, demonstrates overwhelming superiority in single-threaded performance and floating-point workloads. Its most staggering win is in PassMark single-thread tests, where it scores 4561 against the EPYC's 2367, a massive 48.1% lead. This gap carries over to Cinebench single-core tests, with the Threadripper achieving 846 in R15, 3527 in R20, and 8399 in R23, each 18.4% ahead of the EPYC's scores of 690, 2879, and 6855 respectively. The Threadripper also excels in physics calculations, scoring 7056 versus 4637 (34.3% ahead), and in floating-point math with 148042 versus 139022 (6.1% ahead). Extended instruction benchmarks favor the Threadripper as well, with a score of 70809 compared to the EPYC's 60304 (14.8% ahead). Notably, the Threadripper also wins all Cinebench multicore tests despite having half the cores, achieving 5996 in R15, 24987 in R20, and 59494 in R23, each 18.4% ahead of the EPYC's 4894, 20393, and 48557. The PassMark multithread score also favors the Threadripper at 69993 versus 57127 (18.4% ahead).

The Verdict

The data presents a clear directive for workload-based selection. For professionals whose primary tasks involve data encryption, compression, and integer-heavy server processes, the AMD EPYC 8324P is the statistically superior option. Its 30.4% lead in encryption and 10.1% lead in compression are substantial margins that translate to real-world time savings in environments handling sensitive data or large datasets. The EPYC's 32 cores provide a raw thread count advantage that, while not universal across all tests, proves decisive in these specific PassMark categories.

For virtually every other scenario, particularly those involving interactive use, simulation, or software development, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is the data-backed choice. The 48.1% single-thread advantage is not a minor detail; it fundamentally changes the user experience for applications that cannot fully utilize many cores. The Threadripper's consistent 18.4% lead across all Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, indicates a more balanced and capable overall processor. Its 34.3% lead in physics calculations makes it the clear pick for engineering simulations and scientific computing. Given that the Threadripper achieves these results with 16 fewer cores, its architectural efficiency is evident. The overall average benchmark scores are close, but the Threadripper's wins are in more broadly applicable categories. The EPYC is a specialist; the Threadripper is a generalist with exceptional peak performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided results in the head-to-head comparison highlight the architectural gulf between the two processors. The PassMark single-thread test shows the Threadripper at 4561 versus the EPYC's 2367, a 48.1% delta that stands as the largest performance gap in the dataset. This test is a proxy for responsiveness and lightly-threaded application performance. Similarly, the physics test shows a 34.3% delta in favor of the Threadripper (7056 vs 4637), indicating its superior capability in handling the complex physical calculations common in modern rendering and simulation engines.

The EPYC's counter-attacks are led by data encryption, where its 63195 score eclipses the Threadripper's 48476 by 30.4%. This is followed by data compression, with the EPYC scoring 980907 versus 890743, a 10.1% lead. The EPYC also wins more modest victories in random string sorting (3.4%), find prime numbers (2.1%), and integer math (0.9%). The near-tie in integer math, with the EPYC at 248447 and the Threadripper at 246111, shows that core count can offset clock speed in certain integer operations. However, the Threadripper's 14.8% lead in extended instructions and 6.1% lead in floating-point math demonstrate its superior per-core execution capabilities in more complex instruction sets. In the Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Threadripper's 59494 score versus the EPYC's 48557 is particularly telling, as it shows the 16-core Zen 5 processor outpacing the 32-core Zen 4c processor by 18.4% in a heavily threaded rendering workload.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX is vastly superior, with PassMark single-thread scores of 4561 compared to the EPYC 8324P's 2367, a 48.1% difference. This advantage is consistent across all Cinebench single-core tests.

Q: Is the AMD EPYC 8324P better for data encryption?

A: Yes. The EPYC 8324P scores 63195 in PassMark data encryption, which is 30.4% higher than the Threadripper PRO 9955WX's score of 48476. This is the EPYC's largest margin of victory.

Q: How do the processors compare in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9955WX wins all Cinebench multicore tests by an 18.4% margin, scoring 59494 in R23 versus the EPYC's 48557. It also leads in PassMark multithread (69993 vs 57127). The EPYC only wins in specific PassMark tests like data compression and encryption.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX was released on 2025-07-22, while the AMD EPYC 8324P was released on 2023-09-17.

Q: Does the EPYC 8324P have more cores?

A: Yes, the EPYC 8324P has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9955WX has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the overall benchmark score difference?

A: The EPYC 8324P has an average benchmark score of 103329, while the Threadripper PRO 9955WX scores 100227. This places the EPYC 3.1% ahead on average, though the Threadripper wins more individual tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectural principles. The EPYC 8324P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, which is a dense variant designed for high core counts in power-constrained server environments. It is fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 35,500 million transistors spread across a die size of 4x 73 mm². This architecture prioritizes core density over clock speed, which is reflected in its base clock of 2.65 GHz and boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The EPYC has a total of 128 MB of shared L3 cache, with 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core.

In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 9955WX utilizes the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak. This is a performance-optimized design manufactured on a more advanced 4 nm process at TSMC. It contains 16,630 million transistors on a die size of 2x 70.6 mm². Zen 5 is engineered for high clock speeds and superior single-thread performance, achieving a base clock of 4.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Threadripper features 64 MB of shared L3 cache, with the same 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core as the EPYC. The generation label for the Threadripper lists "Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 4 (Storm Peak))", which appears to be a classification distinction, but the architecture field clearly states Zen 5. The EPYC's transistor count is more than double the Threadripper's, highlighting the cost of implementing 32 cores on a denser process node.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core specifications and platform requirements. The EPYC 8324P operates on the AMD Socket SP6 platform with a TDP of 180 watts, while the Threadripper PRO 9955WX uses the AMD Socket sTR5 with a much higher TDP of 350 watts. The EPYC's base clock is 2.65 GHz and boost clock is 3.00 GHz, whereas the Threadripper's are 4.50 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost, reflecting its focus on raw speed. The EPYC has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the Threadripper has 16 cores and 32 threads.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC supports six-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s, while the Threadripper supports eight-channel DDR5 with a higher bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another differentiator: the EPYC provides 96 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper offers 128 Gen 5 lanes (CPU only). The EPYC's multiplier is locked, while the Threadripper's is unlocked for overclocking. The market segments are also distinct, with the EPYC classified as Server/Workstation and the Threadripper as Desktop. The EPYC's launch MSRP is $1895, and the Threadripper's launch MSRP is $1649. Their part numbers are 100-000001133 and 100-000000725, respectively.