AMD EPYC 9224 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a strikingly one-sided picture. Across every Cinebench test recorded, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins decisively. The most consistent pattern is the delta: each and every head-to-head result shows a -28.3% difference in favor of the Threadripper. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the older Zen 2 processor beats the newer Zen 4 EPYC 9224 by the same proportional margin.

Looking at raw numbers, the Threadripper 3970X scores 5,405 in Cinebench R15 multi-core against the EPYC's 3,874. The gap widens in Cinebench R20, where the Threadripper hits 22,524 versus 16,144. In Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the trio, the Threadripper reaches 53,630 while the EPYC 9224 manages 38,439. These are not marginal differences — the Threadripper is producing roughly 28% more output in every single multi-threaded render test.

Single-core results tell the same story, which is somewhat surprising given the architectural gap. The EPYC 9224's Zen 4 cores boost to 3.70 GHz, but the Threadripper 3970X boosts higher at 4.50 GHz. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper scores 7,571 against the EPYC's 5,426. The R20 single-core test shows 3,179 versus 2,278, and R15 single-core shows 762 versus 546. The consistent -28.3% delta across all tests — single and multi — suggests the Threadripper's higher clock speeds are entirely dictating the outcome, regardless of core count differences.

It is notably the EPYC 9224 has zero wins in the head-to-head suite. The Threadripper 3970X takes all six recorded benchmarks. However, the aggregate benchmark picture is closer than the head-to-head suggests. The EPYC 9224 has an average benchmark score of 11,118 across all its recorded tests, while the Threadripper 3970X averages 10,841. This means the EPYC actually holds a slight edge in the broader benchmark database, even though it loses every Cinebench matchup. The discrepancy points to the EPYC's strength in other types of workloads not captured in the head-to-head list.

The nearest rival data adds context. The EPYC 9224's closest competitor in the database is the AMD EPYC 7542 with an average score of 11,152, a delta of -0.3%. The Intel Core i7-6700 trails at 11,074, a +0.4% delta. For the Threadripper 3970X, its nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-6700 at 11,074 (-2.1%), followed closely by the EPYC 9224 itself at 11,118 (-2.5%). Both CPUs sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they occupy similar positions in the overall performance distribution despite their divergent Cinebench results.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins every single head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, with a consistent -28.3% delta against the AMD EPYC 9224 in each one.

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

A: The Threadripper 3970X scores 53,630 versus the EPYC 9224's 38,439, a difference of 15,191 points. The delta is -28.3% from the EPYC's perspective.

Q: Does the EPYC 9224 beat the Threadripper in any benchmark category?

A: In the head-to-head suite, no — the EPYC has zero wins. However, its overall average benchmark score of 11,118 is higher than the Threadripper's 10,841, indicating strength in non-Cinebench workloads.

Q: How do these CPUs compare in the overall database percentile?

A: Both sit at the 66th percentile of all CPUs. Their nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-6700, which appears as a close competitor for both processors.

Q: What is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: The Threadripper 3970X scores 7,571 in single-core R23, while the EPYC 9224 scores 5,426. The delta is -28.3%, identical to the multi-core margin.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance tier despite the Cinebench results?

A: Yes. Their average benchmark scores are within 2.5% of each other (11,118 vs 10,841), and both rank at the 66th percentile of all CPUs. The Cinebench results favor the Threadripper, but the overall database suggests they are close overall performers.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations of AMD's server and desktop lineups. The EPYC 9224 is part of the EPYC 9004 series, built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename "Genoa." It uses a 5 nm process node fabricated by TSMC, packs 26,280 million transistors across four dies measuring 72 mm² each. The Threadripper 3970X belongs to the 3000 series, using Zen 2 architecture with the codename "Castle Peak." It is manufactured on a 7 nm process, also by TSMC, with 15,200 million transistors spread across four 74 mm² dies.

Core counts differ significantly. The EPYC 9224 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper 3970X has 32 cores and 64 threads. This eight-core, sixteen-thread advantage helps explain the Threadripper's multi-core dominance in Cinebench, though the consistent -28.3% delta across single-core tests suggests clock speed is the primary factor. The EPYC's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. The Threadripper runs at 3.70 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost — a full 800 MHz higher at boost.

Cache hierarchies diverge notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the EPYC but only 512 KB per core on the Threadripper. The L3 cache reverses the trend: the EPYC has 64 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 128 MB. The Threadripper's larger L3 pool is a legacy of its dual-chiplet design, while the EPYC's smaller L3 reflects a different memory architecture strategy.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The EPYC 9224 uses DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Threadripper 3970X uses DDR4 on a quad-channel bus, capping at 102.4 GB/s. The EPYC's bandwidth advantage is enormous — over four times the theoretical throughput — yet this does not translate into Cinebench wins, suggesting the benchmark suite is not memory-bandwidth sensitive.

The EPYC supports ECC memory, while the Threadripper does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU only, while the Threadripper provides Gen 4 without a specified lane count. The EPYC is a server/workstation part on AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper is a desktop part on AMD Socket TRX4. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable; the EPYC is locked.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on one point: for Cinebench rendering workloads, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X is the superior processor. It wins every single head-to-head test by exactly 28.3%, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. The Threadripper's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.70 GHz appears to be the deciding factor, as the consistent delta across all tests points to clock speed rather than core count as the primary driver.

However, the AMD EPYC 9224 should not be dismissed. Its average benchmark score of 11,118 edges out the Threadripper's 10,841, and it sits at the same 66th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC's twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth is a massive architectural advantage that likely pays dividends in memory-intensive server workloads. Its 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes also position it for high-bandwidth I/O scenarios that the Threadripper's Gen 4 interface cannot match.

The choice depends on workload. Server and workstation deployments that stress memory bandwidth, PCIe throughput, and ECC reliability should favor the EPYC 9224. Desktop rendering and single-threaded productivity tasks favor the Threadripper 3970X, which also offers more cores (32 versus 24) and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Threadripper's launch MSRP was $1,999, while the EPYC's was $1,825.

The data suggests these are not direct competitors in the traditional sense. They occupy the same performance percentile but serve different markets. The Threadripper's Cinebench dominance is real and measurable, but the EPYC's broader benchmark average indicates it excels in areas the head-to-head suite does not cover.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9224 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X |

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

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 200 W | 280 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket TRX4 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Genoa | Castle Peak |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 26,280 million | 15,200 million |

| Die Size | 4x 72 mm² | 4x 74 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 64 MB (shared) | 128 MB |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2022-11-09 | 2019-11-24 |

| Launch MSRP | $1825 | $1999 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X dominates the shared benchmark suite. It wins all six Cinebench tests across R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core configurations. The -28.3% delta is uniform, meaning the Threadripper's advantage is consistent regardless of thread count. For users running Cinebench-like rendering workloads — which typically stress raw CPU clock speed and core count — the Threadripper is the clear choice. Its 32 cores and 64 threads outnumber the EPYC's 24 cores and 48 threads. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock exceeds the EPYC's 3.70 GHz. Its unlocked multiplier allows further overclocking, while the EPYC remains locked. Higher TDP of 280 W versus 200 W suggests the Threadripper is designed to sustain high loads on desktop platforms.

The AMD EPYC 9224 wins in overall average benchmark score. Its 11,118 average surpasses the Threadripper's 10,841, indicating stronger performance in the broader benchmark database beyond Cinebench. The EPYC's twelve-channel DDR5 memory at 460.8 GB/s is a massive bandwidth advantage over the Threadripper's quad-channel DDR4 at 102.4 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads — database operations, virtualization, large-scale data processing — the EPYC's architecture is superior. Its 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes provide connectivity that the Threadripper's Gen 4 interface cannot match, making the EPYC the better fit for high-throughput storage and network configurations. ECC memory support is a server-grade feature absent from the Threadripper.

The production status shows both are active, but the EPYC is newer, released in 2022 versus 2019. The EPYC's 5 nm process with 26,280 million transistors demonstrates a more advanced manufacturing technology, even though it does not translate to Cinebench victories. The Threadripper's larger L3 cache of 128 MB versus 64 MB may benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect.

For a desktop user prioritizing rendering performance and overclocking, the Threadripper 3970X is the data-backed winner. For a server administrator prioritizing memory bandwidth, ECC reliability, PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, and overall benchmark diversity, the EPYC 9224 offers capabilities the Threadripper simply lacks. The head-to-head results favor one; the aggregate data favors the other. Both sit at the 66th percentile, but they achieve that position through entirely different strengths.