AMD EPYC 8534P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and the AMD EPYC 8534P both sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, yet they achieve that status through starkly different designs. The Threadripper PRO, a 32-core Zen 5 part, and the EPYC, a 64-core Zen 4c part, are separated by an average benchmark score of just 0.7% in favor of the former, making this a battle of raw frequency versus raw core count. The data reveals a clear split: the Threadripper PRO dominates single-threaded and burst workloads, while the EPYC asserts its authority in specific throughput tasks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in this comparison is the sheer magnitude of the Threadripper PRO 9975WX’s victory in Cinebench tests. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks—both single-core and multi-core—the Threadripper PRO wins by a consistent margin of roughly 53%. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO scores 93,553 against the EPYC’s 61,115, a 53.1% advantage. The single-core results are equally lopsided, with the Threadripper PRO posting 13,207 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 8,628 for the EPYC, again a 53.1% delta. This pattern suggests that the Threadripper PRO’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz over the EPYC’s 3.10 GHz provides a decisive edge in rendering tasks that scale with per-core performance.

The Threadripper PRO’s dominance extends to PassMark’s multi-thread test, where it scores 110,740 against the EPYC’s 71,900, a 54% lead. A similar gap appears in random string sorting, with the Threadripper PRO ahead by 58.9% (205,730 vs. 129,479). The most extreme disparity, however, is in PassMark’s physics test. Here, the Threadripper PRO scores 12,426, a staggering 238.9% higher than the EPYC’s 3,667. This benchmark appears to be highly sensitive to the Threadripper PRO’s clock speed and architecture, as the EPYC’s 64 cores provide no benefit in this particular workload.

Single-thread performance is another categorical win for the Threadripper PRO. In PassMark’s single-thread test, it scores 4,422 versus 2,441 for the EPYC, an 81.2% advantage. The EPYC’s low base clock of 2.30 GHz and boost of 3.10 GHz are simply not competitive in this domain. The Threadripper PRO also wins PassMark’s extended instructions test by 12.5% (126,987 vs. 112,860) and floating point math by a narrow 0.9% (292,100 vs. 289,443), the latter being its smallest victory.

The EPYC 8534P does not go down without a fight, and its wins are concentrated in data-centric workloads. Its most significant victory is in PassMark’s data encryption test, where it scores 121,728 against the Threadripper PRO’s 94,634, a 22.3% lead. The EPYC also takes the data compression test, scoring 1,791,742 versus 1,669,837, a 6.8% advantage. The third and final win for the EPYC is in integer math, where it posts 514,526 against 485,286, a 5.7% lead. These wins suggest that the EPYC’s 64 cores and 128 threads can be leveraged effectively when the workload is highly parallel and memory-bound, even with lower per-core throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture of workload suitability. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the winner for any task that prioritizes low-latency, high-frequency execution. Its 53.1% lead across the Cinebench suite makes it the obvious choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and other creative applications that rely heavily on single-threaded performance and moderate multi-threading. The 238.9% lead in PassMark physics is particularly telling, as physics simulations often require fast single-core response times. The 81.2% lead in single-thread PassMark further cements its position for general desktop responsiveness and legacy software that cannot utilize many cores.

Conversely, the EPYC 8534P is the winner in scenarios where raw throughput on massive datasets is paramount. The 22.3% lead in data encryption and the 6.8% lead in data compression indicate that the EPYC’s 64 cores are better suited for server-side tasks like database encryption, file compression, and other data transformation pipelines. Its 5.7% win in integer math also points to strength in general server workloads, such as web serving or batch processing, where the sheer number of threads can overcome the per-core deficit. The EPYC’s higher average benchmark score relative to the AMD EPYC 7763 (2.9% deltaPct) shows it is a capable server part, even if it falls behind the Threadripper PRO in most head-to-head tests.

For the Threadripper PRO, the data shows a CPU that is 54% faster in PassMark multi-thread and 53.1% faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core, making it a workstation powerhouse. For the EPYC, the data shows a CPU that excels in specific server functions, with a 22.3% lead in encryption being its headline achievement. The distinction is not about which CPU is “better” overall, but which is better matched to the task at hand.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the superior choice for users whose primary workloads are creative and computational. Its consistent 53.1% advantage across the Cinebench line-up, combined with a 54% lead in PassMark multi-thread, makes it the clear winner for rendering, simulation, and any task that benefits from high clock speeds. The Threadripper PRO also holds a 0.7% average benchmark score lead over the EPYC, and it is 3.6% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7763, placing it in a strong position among its immediate rivals. For a workstation user, the 4.00 GHz base clock and 5.40 GHz boost clock are decisive factors.

The AMD EPYC 8534P is the correct choice for data-centric server deployments where its 64 cores can be fully utilized. Its 22.3% lead in data encryption is a significant advantage for security-focused applications, and its 6.8% lead in data compression makes it ideal for storage servers or backup systems. The EPYC’s 64-core design, while slower per core, offers a higher thread count for parallel workloads. However, its 0.7% deficit to the Threadripper PRO in average score, and its 5% deficit to the Intel Xeon 6741P, suggest that it is not the top performer in its own class. The EPYC wins 3 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the Threadripper PRO wins 14, a ratio that favors the latter for most general-purpose computing.

Buyers should choose the Threadripper PRO 9975WX for maximum per-core performance and workstation-class rendering. Buyers should choose the EPYC 8534P for server workloads that prioritize data encryption and compression throughput over single-threaded speed. The Threadripper PRO is the better all-rounder; the EPYC is the better specialist.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has an average benchmark score of 186,447, which is 0.7% higher than the AMD EPYC 8534P’s score of 185,092.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper PRO in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX scores 93,553 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 53.1% higher than the EPYC 8534P’s score of 61,115.

Q: In which benchmark does the EPYC 8534P have its largest lead?

A: The EPYC 8534P has its largest lead in PassMark data encryption, where it scores 121,728, a 22.3% advantage over the Threadripper PRO’s 94,634.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference between the two?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 8534P has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: How does the Threadripper PRO compare to the Intel Xeon 6740E?

A: The Threadripper PRO has an average score of 186,447, which is 0.7% lower than the Intel Xeon 6740E’s average score of 187,718.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, which is significantly higher than the EPYC 8534P’s boost clock of 3.10 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX uses the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, fabricated on a 4 nm process by TSMC. In contrast, the AMD EPYC 8534P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, fabricated on a 5 nm process by TSMC. The Threadripper PRO has a die size of 4x 70.6 mm² with 33,260 million transistors, while the EPYC has a die size of 4x 73 mm² with 35,500 million transistors.

Both CPUs feature identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 128 MB of shared L3 cache. The key difference lies in the core counts and clock speeds, with the EPYC packing double the cores (64 vs. 32) but at much lower frequencies. The Threadripper PRO has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC has a base of 2.30 GHz and a boost of 3.10 GHz.

Memory and I/O configurations also differ substantially. The Threadripper PRO supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s, while the EPYC supports six-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 230.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. For PCIe, the Threadripper PRO offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), whereas the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 96 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper PRO uses the AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses the AMD Socket SP6.

The Threadripper PRO is a newer part, with a release date of 2025-07-22, compared to the EPYC’s release on 2023-09-17. The Threadripper PRO also has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the EPYC is locked. Both CPUs have a TDP of 350W for the Threadripper PRO and 200W for the EPYC, and both are currently active in production. The Threadripper PRO’s launch MSRP is $4099, while the EPYC’s launch MSRP is $4950.