AMD EPYC 8434P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 8434P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC leads by 16 cores and 32 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speed?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the EPYC 8434P boosts to 3.10 GHz. That is a 1.40 GHz advantage for the Threadripper.

Q: Which processor supports faster memory technology?

A: The EPYC 8434P supports DDR5 memory with a six-channel bus and 230.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX supports DDR4 with eight channels and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the two compare in overall benchmark percentile?

A: The EPYC 8434P sits at the 98th percentile of all CPUs, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX sits at the 97th percentile. Both are high-end parts, but the EPYC ranks slightly higher.

Q: Which processor has the larger total L3 cache?

A: Both processors have 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The difference is in L2 cache: the EPYC has 1 MB per core, while the Threadripper has 512 KB per core.

Q: Who wins more head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins 11 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC 8434P wins 6. The Threadripper's wins are concentrated in rendering and single-thread workloads.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 8434P is built on the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, using a 5 nm TSMC process. It integrates 35,500 million transistors across four dies, each measuring 73 mm². The Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses the Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO, on a 7 nm TSMC process with 16,600 million transistors spread across four dies of 81 mm² each. The EPYC's denser 5 nm process allows it to pack 48 cores into a similar physical footprint, though at lower clocks.

The EPYC 8434P features a six-channel DDR5 memory controller with 230.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses an eight-channel DDR4 controller with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having two fewer memory channels, the EPYC achieves higher theoretical bandwidth due to DDR5's higher per-channel throughput. The EPYC also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 96 CPU lanes, whereas the Threadripper uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes.

Cache hierarchy differs significantly. The EPYC has 1 MB of L2 cache per core, double the Threadripper's 512 KB per core. Both share 128 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L2 cache helps compensate for its lower clock speeds in memory-heavy workloads. Both processors support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics.

The socket platforms are entirely different: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP6, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. The EPYC belongs to the EPYC 8004 series and launched in September 2023, while the Threadripper is part of the 5000 series and launched in March 2022. The EPYC's newer generation is evident in its process node and memory technology.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 8434P wins in data compression, data encryption, extended instructions, floating point math, integer math, and random string sorting. Its 48-core advantage shows clearly in parallel integer and encryption workloads. The data encryption win is particularly pronounced, with a 20.9% lead. The EPYC also takes floating point math by 6.6%, indicating strong computational throughput for scientific workloads that scale across many cores.

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX dominates rendering benchmarks and single-thread performance. It wins all Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) in both single-core and multi-core variants. It also wins PassMark's multithread test, physics simulation, prime number finding, and single-thread tests. The single-thread advantage is massive: the Threadripper scores 3,323 versus the EPYC's 2,448, a 26.3% lead. This comes from its 4.50 GHz boost clock versus 3.10 GHz.

For rendering and 3D modeling workloads, the Threadripper's higher clocks and Zen 3 architecture deliver better results despite fewer cores. The EPYC's wins are in server-style workloads: encryption, compression, and math-heavy parallel processing. The Threadripper's physics simulation win (7.4% ahead) suggests better per-core efficiency in real-time physics calculations.

The PassMark multithread result is telling: the Threadripper scores 75,319 versus the EPYC's 66,490, an 11.7% lead. This means the Threadripper's 32 cores outperform the EPYC's 48 cores in a general multithreaded workload, likely due to clock speed and per-core IPC advantages.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 8434P | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX |

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

| Architecture | Zen 4c (Siena) | Zen 3 (Chagall PRO) |

| Process node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 35,500 million | 16,600 million |

| Die size | 4x 73 mm² | 4x 81 mm² |

| Cores / Threads | 48 / 96 | 32 / 64 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.10 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 280 W |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 128 MB (shared) | 128 MB |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bus | Six-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 230.4 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 96 lanes | Gen 4, 128 lanes |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP6 | AMD Socket WRX8 |

| Release date | 2023-09-17 | 2022-03-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $2700 | $3299 |

The EPYC has a significantly lower TDP of 200 W versus 280 W, despite having 16 more cores. This reflects the power efficiency of the 5 nm Zen 4c process. The Threadripper's higher TDP enables its higher clock speeds. The EPYC's die size is smaller per die (73 vs 81 mm²), contributing to its transistor density advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins all six Cinebench tests by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 64,021 versus the EPYC's 56,516, an 11.7% lead. The same 11.7% delta appears in R20 multi-core (26,888 vs 23,736) and R15 multi-core (6,453 vs 5,696). Single-core results show the same pattern: R23 single-core is 9,038 vs 7,978, R20 single-core is 3,795 vs 3,350, and R15 single-core is 910 vs 804, all with an 11.7% delta.

The EPYC's largest victory is in data encryption, where it scores 97,254 versus 80,453, a 20.9% advantage. This likely reflects the EPYC's newer instruction set and higher core count scaling in cryptographic workloads. Data compression also favors the EPYC: 1,412,835 versus 1,293,784, a 9.2% lead. Floating point math goes to the EPYC at 215,669 versus 202,363, a 6.6% win, while integer math shows a 7% lead (385,290 vs 360,156).

The PassMark single-thread test reveals the biggest gap in the entire comparison: the Threadripper scores 3,323 versus the EPYC's 2,448, a 26.3% advantage. This is consistent across both single-thread test entries in the database. The Threadripper also wins PassMark multithread with 75,319 versus 66,490, an 11.7% lead, matching its Cinebench margins. Prime number finding goes decisively to the Threadripper: 438 versus 298, a 32% lead, the largest percentage delta in either direction. Physics simulation shows a 7.4% Threadripper win (4,360 vs 4,036).

The EPYC wins random string sorting by a narrow 1.9% margin (125,932 vs 123,527) and extended instructions by 4% (86,189 vs 82,850). These narrower wins contrast with the encryption and compression victories, suggesting the EPYC's advantage is workload-specific rather than universal.

The overall benchmark score averages confirm the split: the EPYC 8434P averages 146,881 points, placing it at the 98th percentile, while the Threadripper averages 124,171 at the 97th percentile. The EPYC's nearest rival is the Threadripper PRO 9965WX at 147,009 points, a negligible 0.1% difference. The Threadripper 5975WX's nearest rival is the EPYC 7642 at 124,006 points, a 0.1% difference. These averages reflect that the EPYC's wins occur in high-scoring workloads, while the Threadripper's wins are in lower-scoring specialized tests.