AMD EPYC 9255 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data draws a clear line: the AMD EPYC 9255 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX. The EPYC 9255 is the faster processor in nearly every measurable workload, and it does so while consuming less power on paper. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX retains exactly one victory, in PassMark data encryption, where it leads by 5.5 percent. For buyers who prioritize raw throughput across rendering, math, sorting, and compression, the EPYC 9255 is the decisive choice. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX remains relevant only for those who specifically need its encryption edge or who are already invested in the WRX8 platform with DDR4 memory. The data does not support choosing the Threadripper for general compute; it supports the EPYC for almost everything.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share AMD as the manufacturer, 24 cores, and 48 threads, but the underlying designs diverge sharply. The EPYC 9255 belongs to the EPYC 9005 series, built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Turin. It is fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, packing 33,260 million transistors across a die size of four instances of 70.6 mm². The Threadripper PRO 5965WX is from the 5000 series, using the older Zen 3 architecture with the codename Chagall PRO. That chip is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 16,600 million transistors across four dies of 81 mm² each. The transistor count difference is substantial: the EPYC packs roughly double the transistors of the Threadripper, which explains much of its performance advantage despite the same core count.

Cache layouts also differ. The EPYC 9255 offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 128 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX has 64 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, also with 128 MB of L3. The EPYC's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches give it a structural edge in latency-sensitive workloads. Memory support is a generational leap: the EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses DDR4 with eight channels and 204.8 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth advantage for the EPYC, a major factor in multi-threaded scalability. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC provides Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper provides Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes (CPU only). Both support ECC memory and neither has integrated graphics.

Clock speeds tell a mixed story. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.25 GHz for the EPYC 9255, but the EPYC boosts higher at 4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. The Threadripper carries a higher TDP of 280 watts against the EPYC's 200 watts, meaning the EPYC delivers superior performance within a lower thermal envelope. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9255 dominates the Cinebench suite with remarkable consistency. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 6483 against 5685, a 14 percent lead. Single-core R15 shows 915 versus 802, a 14.1 percent advantage. The pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (27013 versus 23688) and single-core (3813 versus 3344), both at a 14 percent delta. In R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 64318 against 56400, again 14 percent ahead, and in R23 single-core it records 9080 versus 7962, another 14 percent gain. The uniformity across all six Cinebench tests indicates a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark results show the EPYC leading in every category except one, though the margins vary. The largest single delta is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC scores 9740 against the Threadripper's 4251, a staggering 129.1 percent advantage. This is the biggest gap in the entire comparison and suggests a fundamental difference in how the two architectures handle physics simulation workloads. Random string sorting also shows a major gap: 129202 versus 99287, a 30.1 percent lead for the EPYC. Floating point math favors the EPYC at 183367 versus 157708, a 16.3 percent margin. Multi-thread performance in PassMark shows 76580 versus 66353, a 15.4 percent lead. Extended instructions go to the EPYC at 75185 versus 67300, an 11.7 percent gain. Find prime numbers sees 580 versus 523, a 10.9 percent edge. Single-thread PassMark shows 3655 versus 3337, a 9.5 percent lead. Integer math favors the EPYC at 306442 versus 281247, a 9 percent margin. Data compression is close: 1018904 versus 1010067, a narrow 0.9 percent win for the EPYC.

The Threadripper's only victory comes in data encryption, where it scores 63113 against the EPYC's 59668, a 5.5 percent advantage. That is a meaningful result for encrypted storage or secure communication workloads, but it stands alone against 16 wins for the EPYC.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification except core count, thread count, manufacturer, ECC support, and market segment. The EPYC 9255 uses Zen 5 architecture, a 4 nm process, 33,260 million transistors, four dies of 70.6 mm² each, 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, DDR5 memory, twelve-channel memory bus, 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes, Socket SP5, a 3.25 GHz base clock, a 4.80 GHz boost clock, and a 200 watt TDP. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX uses Zen 3 architecture, a 7 nm process, 16,600 million transistors, four dies of 81 mm² each, 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, DDR4 memory, eight-channel memory bus, 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, Gen 4 PCIe with 128 lanes, Socket WRX8, a 3.80 GHz base clock, a 4.50 GHz boost clock, and a 280 watt TDP.

Both share 24 cores, 48 threads, 128 MB of L3 cache, ECC memory support, no integrated graphics, and the Server/Workstation market segment. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. Release dates differ: the EPYC launched on 2024-10-09, while the Threadripper launched on 2022-03-07. The EPYC carries a launch MSRP of $2495; the Threadripper carries a launch MSRP of $2399. Part numbers are 100-000000694 for the EPYC and 100-000000446 for the Threadripper. The EPYC's average benchmark score is 116388, while the Threadripper's is 98504, a difference of roughly 18 percent in aggregate performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5965WX wins exactly one, in PassMark data encryption.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC 9255 scores 9740 against the Threadripper's 4251, a 129.1 percent advantage.

Q: How do the processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The EPYC 9255 leads in every single-core test. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 9080 versus 7962, a 14 percent lead. PassMark single-thread shows 3655 versus 3337, a 9.5 percent lead.

Q: Does the Threadripper PRO 5965WX have any advantage at all?

A: Yes, in PassMark data encryption, the Threadripper scores 63113 against the EPYC's 59668, a 5.5 percent advantage. It also has a higher base clock at 3.80 GHz versus 3.25 GHz.

Q: What memory technology does each processor use?

A: The EPYC 9255 uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX uses DDR4 with an eight-channel memory bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to rival processors?

A: The EPYC 9255 averages 116388, sitting 0.3 percent above the Intel Xeon 658X and 1 percent above the Intel Xeon 6527P, while trailing the Intel Xeon w7-3565X by 1.6 percent and the AMD EPYC 9384X by 3.4 percent. The Threadripper PRO 5965WX averages 98504, which is 0.8 percent below the AMD EPYC 4585PX, 1.1 percent above the AMD Ryzen 9 9955HX3D, 2.5 percent above the AMD Ryzen 9 PRO 9945, and 2.5 percent below the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9955WX. Both processors sit in the 97th percentile of all CPUs.