AMD EPYC 9124 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX leads in every single-core benchmark recorded. It scores 595 versus 530 in Cinebench R15 single-core, 2480 versus 2209 in R20, 5906 versus 5261 in R23, and 3324 versus 2719 in PassMark single-thread, a consistent 12.3% to 22.3% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in multithreaded workloads?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins all multithreaded Cinebench tests by 12.3%, scoring 4217 in R15, 17571 in R20, and 41837 in R23. The EPYC 9124 counters with a 12.3% higher PassMark multithread score of 43846 versus 49220? No, the Threadripper wins that too. The EPYC only wins PassMark physics by 20.5% and random string sorting by 5.8%.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 9124 uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX has a 280 W TDP, while the EPYC 9124 has a 200 W TDP. The Threadripper also has a higher base clock of 4.00 GHz versus 3.00 GHz and a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.70 GHz.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses AMD Socket WRX8, while the EPYC 9124 uses AMD Socket SP5. This means they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard.

Q: How do the overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX has an average benchmark score of 67868, placing it in the 94th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9124 averages 65104, placing it in the 93rd percentile. The Threadripper sits 0.1% above the AMD EPYC 4484PX, while the EPYC 9124 sits 1.2% below the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the faster processor in 14 of the 17 recorded head-to-head benchmarks. It wins every Cinebench test, all single-thread PassMark tests, and the majority of PassMark compute workloads. The EPYC 9124 wins only three tests: PassMark find prime numbers, PassMark physics, and PassMark random string sorting.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, rendering, or general workstation tasks, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the clear choice. Its 12.3% advantage across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both single-core and multi-core, demonstrates a consistent architectural edge in CPU-bound rendering workloads. The 24.5% lead in PassMark integer math and 19.9% lead in floating-point math further cement its position for scientific computing and general number-crunching.

The EPYC 9124 is the better pick only for specific use cases. Its 20.5% advantage in PassMark physics suggests a real edge in simulation workloads that rely on physics calculations. Its 5.8% lead in random string sorting points to strengths in certain data-processing tasks. However, these are narrow wins. The EPYC's 3.1% advantage in prime number finding is marginal and unlikely to matter in real-world applications.

The EPYC 9124 does offer a more modern platform with DDR5 and twelve-channel memory, plus PCIe Gen 5, which are significant for memory-bandwidth-hungry server workloads. But based strictly on recorded benchmark scores, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX delivers superior performance in the vast majority of tests. Choose the Threadripper for compute density; choose the EPYC only if your specific workload matches its three winning test categories or requires the newer memory and PCIe standards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 5955WX dominates the Cinebench suite with a uniform 12.3% margin across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4217 against 3756. Single-core R15 shows 595 against 530. The R20 results follow the same pattern: 17571 versus 15652 multi-core, and 2480 versus 2209 single-core. R23 multi-core sees 41837 versus 37269, with single-core at 5906 versus 5261. This consistency indicates a clock-speed and IPC advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The PassMark suite reveals larger deltas in several compute tests. The biggest win for the Threadripper is integer math, where it scores 185168 versus 148785, a 24.5% lead. Floating-point math follows at 104377 versus 87057, a 19.9% advantage. Data encryption shows 42524 versus 36078, a 17.9% gap. Data compression comes in at 690994 versus 599417, a 15.3% lead. Extended instructions score 46952 versus 43380, an 8.2% edge. PassMark single-thread shows 3324 versus 2719, a 22.3% lead, and the multithread test shows 49220 versus 43846, a 12.3% advantage.

The EPYC 9124 wins three tests, but with smaller or negative deltas. PassMark physics is its strongest result: 3662 versus 2913, a 20.5% advantage. Random string sorting scores 74177 versus 69879, a 5.8% lead. Find prime numbers shows 256 versus 248, a 3.1% edge. These wins are real but narrow in scope, covering only physics simulation, sorting, and prime-number workloads.

The overall win count of 14 for the Threadripper and 3 for the EPYC tells the story. The Threadripper's wins span rendering, encryption, compression, math, and single-thread performance. The EPYC's wins are confined to three specialized tests.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 16 cores and 32 threads. Both are 64 MB L3 cache processors with 64 KB L1 per core and ECC memory support. Both have 128 PCIe lanes, but the Threadripper uses PCIe Gen 4 while the EPYC uses PCIe Gen 5. Both have locked multipliers.

The clock speeds differ significantly. The Threadripper PRO 5955WX runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. The EPYC 9124 runs at 3.00 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. This 1.00 GHz base-clock gap and 0.80 GHz boost-clock gap explain much of the Threadripper's benchmark advantage.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The Threadripper supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC has 2.25 times the memory bandwidth on paper, though this does not translate into benchmark wins in most tests.

TDP differs by 80 W: the Threadripper draws 280 W versus the EPYC's 200 W. Socket compatibility is completely different: WRX8 versus SP5. The release dates also differ, with the Threadripper launching on 2022-03-07 and the EPYC on 2022-11-09.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper PRO 5955WX is built on Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Chagall PRO, from the 5000 series. It uses a 7 nm process from TSMC with 16,600 million transistors across a 4x 81 mm² die configuration. The EPYC 9124 is built on Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Genoa, from the EPYC 9004 series. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC with 26,280 million transistors across a 4x 72 mm² die configuration.

The L2 cache differs: the Threadripper has 512 KB per core, while the EPYC has 1 MB per core. Both share 64 MB of L3 cache, but the Threadripper's L3 is described as 64 MB total while the EPYC's is described as 64 MB shared. The smaller process node and doubled L2 cache on the EPYC do not overcome the Threadripper's clock-speed advantage in most benchmarks.

The EPYC's newer Zen 4 architecture and 5 nm process should theoretically offer better IPC, but the recorded data shows the Threadripper winning all Cinebench tests by exactly 12.3%. This suggests that the Threadripper's higher clocks, 4.50 GHz boost versus 3.70 GHz, dominate the architectural differences in these workloads.

The memory and PCIe generations are major architectural separators. The EPYC's DDR5 and PCIe Gen 5 represent newer standards, but the Threadripper's DDR4 and PCIe Gen 4 still deliver competitive performance in compute benchmarks. The EPYC's twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth are clearly superior specifications, yet they do not produce wins in most tests.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins in every rendering workload. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, all show a 12.3% lead. This makes it the obvious choice for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any CPU-bound creative workload.

The Threadripper also wins in general compute tasks. PassMark integer math shows a 24.5% advantage, floating-point math a 19.9% edge, and data encryption a 17.9% lead. Data compression comes in 15.3% higher, and extended instructions are 8.2% faster. Single-thread performance is 22.3% better, which benefits legacy applications and lightly threaded workloads. The multithread score is 12.3% higher, and the overall PassMark average is 4.2% higher.

The EPYC 9124 wins in physics simulation, with a 20.5% higher PassMark physics score. This suggests a genuine advantage for gaming physics, particle simulations, or engineering analysis that relies on physics calculations. The 5.8% lead in random string sorting indicates an edge in certain data-processing or database workloads that involve sorting operations. The 3.1% advantage in find prime numbers is too small to be meaningful for most applications.

The EPYC's platform advantages should not be ignored. Its DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 5 connectivity are superior specifications. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require the fastest I/O, the EPYC's platform may deliver benefits that do not show up in these particular benchmarks. The EPYC also has a lower 200 W TDP, which may be preferable for dense server deployments where power is a constraint.

In summary, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the performance leader in 14 of 17 tests, with particularly strong showings in rendering, math, and single-thread workloads. The EPYC 9124 is the winner in physics, sorting, and prime-number tests, and offers a more modern memory and I/O platform. Users should match their specific workload to these strengths.