AMD EPYC 8434P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD EPYC 8434P. This is not a narrow margin; the average advantage across the entire test suite is substantial, and the pattern is consistent across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads.

Starting with the Cinebench suite, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX demonstrates a uniform lead of approximately 26.2% in both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 3995WX scores 71,338 versus the EPYC 8434P's 56,516. The single-core R23 result shows 10,071 against 7,978, again a 26.2% gap. This uniformity suggests the advantage is architectural and clock-driven rather than workload-specific. The Cinebench R15 and R20 results mirror this: multi-core scores of 7,190 vs. 5,696 and 29,961 vs. 23,736 respectively, with single-core at 1,014 vs. 804 and 4,229 vs. 3,350. Every single one of these falls into the same 26.1% to 26.2% range.

The Passmark suite reveals where the real separation occurs. The largest single delta is in `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, where the Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 566 against the EPYC 8434P's 298, a staggering 89.9% advantage. This test is highly sensitive to integer throughput and memory latency, and the data indicates the older Zen 2 design with its massive 256 MB L3 cache and eight-channel memory bus handles this workload far more efficiently. The `passmark_random_string_sorting` test shows a 49.7% lead (188,574 vs. 125,932), pointing again to memory subsystem strength. `passmark_physics` shows a 36.2% lead (5,498 vs. 4,036), while `passmark_data_compression` sits at 30.3% (1,841,292 vs. 1,412,835).

Other Passmark tests fall in the 23.5% to 28.8% band: extended instructions at 23.5% (106,423 vs. 86,189), multithreaded at 26.2% (83,928 vs. 66,490), data encryption at 27.9% (124,433 vs. 97,254), floating point math at 28.8% (277,715 vs. 215,669), and integer math at 27.2% (490,116 vs. 385,290). The narrowest margin is in `passmark_single_thread`, where the 3995WX leads by only 6% (2,595 vs. 2,448). This is the one area where the EPYC 8434P's newer Zen 4c cores nearly catch up, but they still fall short.

The overall average benchmark scores reflect this dominance. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has an average score of 171,748 across all tests, while the EPYC 8434P sits at 146,881. Both processors occupy the 98th percentile among all CPUs in the database, but the raw score difference is meaningful. Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the 3995WX sits 2.4% above the AMD EPYC 7C13 (167,788) and 5.7% above the AMD EPYC 9375F (162,497), while trailing the Intel Xeon 6740P by 2.5% (176,227) and the AMD EPYC 7763 by 4.5% (179,916). The EPYC 8434P, by contrast, is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX (147,009, delta of -0.1%) and sits 1.8% above the Intel Xeon w9-3575X (144,323).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests. There are zero wins for the AMD EPYC 8434P in the database.

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

A: The largest gap is in the Passmark find prime numbers test, where the Threadripper PRO 3995WX leads by 89.9% (566 vs. 298). The second largest is in random string sorting at 49.7%.

Q: How close is the single-threaded performance?

A: The single-threaded Passmark score shows the smallest margin: the 3995WX leads by only 6% (2,595 vs. 2,448). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the gap is larger at 26.2% (10,071 vs. 7,978).

Q: Do both processors have the same market positioning?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX is classified as a Desktop processor, while the EPYC 8434P is classified as Server/Workstation. Both are currently listed as Active in production status.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 98th percentile when compared against all CPUs in the database. However, the average benchmark score for the 3995WX is 171,748 versus 146,881 for the 8434P.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has a memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s over eight channels, while the EPYC 8434P has 230.4 GB/s over six channels. Despite the lower aggregate bandwidth, the 3995WX still wins all data-intensive tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the codename Castle Peak, while the AMD EPYC 8434P uses the Zen 4c architecture with the codename Siena. The process nodes differ accordingly: the 3995WX is fabricated on a 7 nm process, while the 8434P is on a 5 nm process, both at TSMC.

Transistor counts and die configurations tell a story of scaling. The 3995WX packs 30,400 million transistors across 8 dies, each measuring 74 mm². The 8434P has 35,500 million transistors across 4 dies, each at 73 mm². The newer 5 nm node allows the 8434P to fit more transistors in a smaller total die area, but the core counts differ: the 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. Both share 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the 3995WX has 512 KB per core, while the 8434P has 1 MB per core. The L3 cache is where the 3995WX makes its stand: it has 256 MB total (the database lists it as 256 MB without specifying shared or per-die), while the 8434P has 128 MB shared. This 2x L3 advantage likely explains the 3995WX's dominance in the prime number and random string sorting tests, which benefit from large resident working sets.

Clock speeds favor the 3995WX as well. The base clock is 2.70 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, and the boost clock is 4.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz. The 8434P's Zen 4c cores are designed for density and efficiency, not peak frequency, and the data reflects that trade-off.

Memory support is generationally split: the 3995WX uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus, while the 8434P uses DDR5 with a six-channel bus. The newer DDR5 standard gives the 8434P a higher peak bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s, but as the benchmark results show, raw bandwidth alone does not determine performance in these tests. PCIe capabilities also differ: the 3995WX offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the 8434P offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). Both support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ across nearly every recorded specification. Core count: 64 vs. 48. Threads: 128 vs. 96. Base clock: 2.70 GHz vs. 2.50 GHz. Boost clock: 4.20 GHz vs. 3.10 GHz. TDP: 280 W vs. 200 W. Socket: WRX8 vs. SP6. Architecture: Zen 2 vs. Zen 4c. Codename: Castle Peak vs. Siena. Process node: 7 nm vs. 5 nm. Transistors: 30,400 million vs. 35,500 million. Die size: 8x 74 mm² vs. 4x 73 mm².

Cache configurations differ as noted: L2 is 512 KB per core vs. 1 MB per core, and L3 is 256 MB vs. 128 MB shared. Memory support is DDR4 vs. DDR5, with eight-channel vs. six-channel buses. Memory bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s vs. 230.4 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 4 with 128 lanes vs. Gen 5 with 96 lanes. Release dates: 2020-07-13 vs. 2023-09-17. Launch MSRP: $5489 vs. $2700. Market segment: Desktop vs. Server/Workstation. Both lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The part numbers confirm distinct product lines: 100-000000087100-100000087WOF for the 3995WX and 100-000000877 for the 8434P.

The Verdict

The data does not support choosing the AMD EPYC 8434P over the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX on any performance metric recorded in this database. The 3995WX wins every single head-to-head benchmark, with advantages ranging from 6% in single-threaded Passmark to 89.9% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score difference is 171,748 vs. 146,881, a gap that places the 3995WX in a higher performance tier despite both being in the 98th percentile.

The 3995WX benefits from a 64-core count versus 48 cores, higher clock speeds (2.70 GHz base, 4.20 GHz boost vs. 2.50 GHz and 3.10 GHz), and double the L3 cache (256 MB vs. 128 MB). These advantages manifest clearly in multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R23, where the 26.2% lead is consistent across all R15, R20, and R23 tests.

The EPYC 8434P does have newer technologies: a 5 nm process, DDR5 memory support, and PCIe Gen 5. It also has a higher memory bandwidth figure (230.4 GB/s vs. 204.8 GB/s) and more L2 cache per core (1 MB vs. 512 KB). None of these translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

For a buyer prioritizing raw compute performance as measured by the database, the 3995WX is the clear choice. For a buyer prioritizing the EPYC platform's newer memory and PCIe standards, the 8434P offers those features, but every recorded performance test currently favors the older Threadripper part.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins in every use case represented by the benchmark suite. Its largest advantages come in workloads that stress the memory subsystem and integer throughput: find prime numbers (89.9% lead), random string sorting (49.7%), and physics simulations (36.2%). These are classic workstation tasks, and the 3995WX's 256 MB L3 cache and eight-channel DDR4 memory bus provide the required data feeding capacity.

The 3995WX also dominates in content creation and rendering tasks, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 71,338 vs. 56,516. Its 64 cores and 128 threads at a 4.20 GHz boost clock handle heavily parallel rendering workloads with a 26.2% advantage. Encryption and compression tasks follow the same pattern: data encryption shows a 27.9% lead, and data compression shows a 30.3% lead.

The AMD EPYC 8434P has no recorded wins in this database. However, its specification sheet points to areas where it could theoretically be competitive in future or unmeasured scenarios: its DDR5 memory bus provides higher peak bandwidth (230.4 GB/s), and its 5 nm process with 35,500 million transistors suggests better power efficiency per transistor. The 8434P also supports PCIe Gen 5, which could matter for storage or accelerator-heavy server workloads that are not captured in these CPU-only benchmarks.

In the measured data, the single-threaded Passmark test is the closest competition, with the 8434P only 6% behind. This suggests that for light, latency-sensitive single-threaded tasks, the newer Zen 4c cores nearly match the older Zen 2 cores despite the 1.10 GHz boost clock deficit. But even there, the 3995WX wins.

The database shows a clear split: the 3995WX is the performance leader across every recorded benchmark, while the 8434P offers newer platform features (DDR5, PCIe Gen 5, 5 nm process) but fails to convert those into any benchmark victories. For workloads measured here, the 3995WX is the definitive choice. For workloads that leverage DDR5 bandwidth or PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, the 8434P remains a candidate, but no current data supports a performance advantage.