AMD EPYC 9184X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9184X and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5955WX are both 16-core, 32-thread server/workstation processors, but they are built on fundamentally different platforms. The EPYC 9184X is a Zen 4 Genoa-X part with a massive 768 MB L3 cache, while the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is a Zen 3 Chagall PRO chip with a 64 MB L3 cache and higher clock speeds. Benchmark data shows that despite the EPYC’s architectural advantages, the Threadripper wins the majority of tests, while the EPYC dominates in a few specific workloads. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the EPYC holding a 0.5% edge (68202 vs 67868).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 5955WX sweeps the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 4217 against the EPYC’s 4083, a 3.2% advantage; the single-core result is 595 vs 576, also 3.2%. The same 3.2% gap repeats in Cinebench R20 (17571 vs 17016 multi-core, 2480 vs 2401 single-core) and Cinebench R23 (41837 vs 40515 multi-core, 5906 vs 5719 single-core). This consistency suggests the Threadripper’s higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 4.20 GHz) and base clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.55 GHz) give it a steady edge in rendering and general compute.

Beyond Cinebench, the Threadripper’s lead widens in several Passmark tests. It wins integer math by 15% (185168 vs 157483), floating-point math by 8.5% (104377 vs 95476), data compression by 11% (690994 vs 614873), data encryption by 12.1% (42524 vs 37376), and extended instructions by 7.2% (46952 vs 43562). The multithread score is 49220 vs 47665, a 3.2% gain, and the single-thread score is 3324 vs 2822, a 15.1% margin. The Threadripper also posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 15834 and single-core 2125, though the EPYC has no Geekbench results in the data.

The EPYC 9184X, however, delivers decisive wins in three areas. Passmark physics shows a 129.1% advantage (6674 vs 2913), find prime numbers is 87.5% higher (465 vs 248), and random string sorting leads by 14.4% (79913 vs 69879). These are not marginal differences; they indicate the EPYC’s 768 MB L3 cache provides a substantial benefit for cache-sensitive workloads like physics simulations, prime-number calculations, and string sorting.

Overall, the Threadripper wins 14 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC takes 3. Despite that, the average benchmark score across all tests is nearly tied, with the EPYC at 68202 and the Threadripper at 67868. In the nearest-rivals list, the EPYC sits 0.5% above the Threadripper, while the Threadripper sits 0.5% below the EPYC—a statistical dead heat.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: if your workload is dominated by general compute, rendering, encryption, or integer/float math, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the stronger choice. It wins every Cinebench test and most Passmark workloads by margins from 3.2% to 15.1%. Its higher clock speeds—4.00 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost—give it a consistent advantage in single-thread and lightly threaded tasks, as reflected in the 15.1% single-thread win.

If your work involves physics simulation, prime-number searches, or random string sorting, the EPYC 9184X is dramatically faster. The 129.1% physics lead and 87.5% prime-number lead are not incremental; they are order-of-magnitude improvements that could halve runtime in those specific tasks. The 14.4% random-string-sorting win also shows a clear cache benefit.

For most users, the Threadripper is the more versatile processor, winning 14 of 17 benchmarks. But for specialized scientific or data-processing workloads that exploit large caches, the EPYC is unmatched. The EPYC also offers a higher memory bandwidth (460.8 GB/s vs 204.8 GB/s) and a newer architecture (Zen 4 vs Zen 3), though these do not translate into wins in the measured tests. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $4928, while the Threadripper has no listed launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs share the same core and thread count—16 cores, 32 threads—but differ in nearly every other architectural aspect. The EPYC 9184X is built on TSMC’s 5 nm process with 90,160 million transistors across eight 72 mm² dies, while the Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses a 7 nm process with 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies. The EPYC’s L2 cache is 1 MB per core, double the Threadripper’s 512 KB per core. The L3 cache is the biggest divergence: the EPYC has 768 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 64 MB.

Memory support is also generationally different. The EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Threadripper uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper provides Gen 4 with 128 lanes. The EPYC’s socket is AMD Socket SP5; the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. TDPs are 320 W for the EPYC and 280 W for the Threadripper. The EPYC was released on 2023-06-12, while the Threadripper came out on 2022-03-07. Both are active production parts and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins the single-thread Passmark test with a score of 3324, compared to the EPYC’s 2822, a 15.1% advantage. It also leads in Cinebench R23 single-core (5906 vs 5719).

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9184X has 768 MB shared L3, while the Threadripper PRO 5955WX has 64 MB. That is a 12x difference.

Q: Does the EPYC’s higher memory bandwidth show in benchmarks?

A: The EPYC has 460.8 GB/s bandwidth versus the Threadripper’s 204.8 GB/s, but in the measured tests, the Threadripper wins memory-sensitive workloads like data compression (690994 vs 614873) and encryption (42524 vs 37376). The EPYC’s bandwidth advantage does not translate into wins in those areas.

Q: Which CPU wins in physics calculations?

A: The EPYC 9184X wins Passmark physics by 129.1% (6674 vs 2913). This is the largest margin in any head-to-head test.

Q: Are the average benchmark scores close?

A: Yes. The EPYC’s average benchmark score is 68202, and the Threadripper’s is 67868, a difference of 0.5% in the EPYC’s favor. Both CPUs are in the 96th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has a newer architecture?

A: The EPYC 9184X uses Zen 4 (Genoa-X), while the Threadripper PRO 5955WX uses Zen 3 (Chagall PRO). The EPYC is also built on a 5 nm process versus 7 nm.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9184X is the clear winner in three distinct workloads: Passmark physics (6674 vs 2913, +129.1%), find prime numbers (465 vs 248, +87.5%), and random string sorting (79913 vs 69879, +14.4%). These results suggest that tasks relying on large, frequently accessed datasets—such as physics simulations, number-theory computations, and string manipulation—benefit massively from the EPYC’s 768 MB L3 cache.

The Threadripper PRO 5955WX wins everywhere else. It takes all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both multi and single core) by 3.2% each. It also wins Passmark data compression by 11%, data encryption by 12.1%, extended instructions by 7.2%, floating-point math by 8.5%, integer math by 15%, multithread by 3.2%, and single-thread by 15.1%. Its higher clock speeds and smaller cache footprint make it the better general-purpose compute chip, especially for rendering, encryption, and integer-heavy tasks.

In summary, the Threadripper PRO 5955WX is the default pick for most workloads, but the EPYC 9184X is the specialized tool for cache-bound scientific applications. The near-identical average scores (68202 vs 67868) reflect that the two chips are balanced overall, but their strengths are highly asymmetric. Choose the EPYC if your software thrives on massive L3, and choose the Threadripper for everything else.