AMD EPYC 9255 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX and the AMD EPYC 9255 are both heavyweights, yet they take fundamentally different approaches to workstation and server performance. Benchmark results reveal a clear split: the Threadripper dominates in several compute-heavy workloads, while the EPYC counters with superior efficiency and wins in a majority of tests. This head-to-head is not about a single winner, but about which set of strengths aligns with your specific workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking victories for the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX come in data processing and cryptographic tasks. In the PassMark data compression test, the Threadripper scores 1,293,784, a massive 27% lead over the EPYC 9255’s 1,018,904. The gap widens even further in data encryption, where the Threadripper’s 80,453 score is 34.8% higher than the EPYC’s 59,668. These are not marginal wins; they represent a substantial performance advantage for tasks that rely on moving and securing large volumes of data. The Threadripper also flexes its muscle in integer math, scoring 360,156 versus 306,442, a 17.5% advantage, and in floating-point math, with a 10.4% lead (202,363 vs 183,367). Extended instruction workloads also favor the Threadripper, with a 10.2% edge (82,850 vs 75,185).

Conversely, the EPYC 9255 secures its wins in a different set of scenarios. While its Cinebench victories are narrow, they are consistent across all versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 64,318 against the Threadripper’s 64,021, a slim 0.5% margin. The same 0.5% delta appears in single-core R23, with scores of 9,080 and 9,038 respectively. This pattern repeats in R20 and R15, showing a constant, if slight, generational efficiency in rendering workloads. The EPYC’s most dramatic win, however, is in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 9,740 compared to the Threadripper’s 4,360. That is a staggering 55.2% difference, suggesting a fundamentally different capability in simulating physical systems. It also takes the PassMark multi-thread test (76,580 vs 75,319, a 1.6% lead), single-thread tests (3,655 vs 3,323, a 9.1% lead), the find prime numbers test (580 vs 438, a 24.5% lead), and random string sorting (129,202 vs 123,527, a 4.4% lead). The final tally is decisive: the EPYC wins 12 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Threadripper takes 5.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparities are rooted in two distinct architectural generations. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX is built on the Zen 3 architecture (codename Chagall PRO) using a 7 nm process from TSMC. In contrast, the EPYC 9255 is a Zen 5 part (codename Turin) fabricated on a more advanced 4 nm node. This process shrink is a key factor in the EPYC’s efficiency, allowing it to achieve higher boost clocks—4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz—while drawing less power. The EPYC’s TDP is 200 W, significantly lower than the Threadripper’s 280 W.

The core counts tell a story of capacity versus efficiency. The Threadripper packs 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC offers 24 cores and 48 threads. Despite having fewer physical cores, the EPYC’s newer architecture and higher clocks allow it to match or beat the Threadripper in many multi-threaded tasks. The cache layouts also differ. Both have a large 128 MB L3 cache, but the Threadripper’s L1 and L2 caches are smaller per core (64 KB and 512 KB) compared to the EPYC’s (80 KB and 1 MB). The memory subsystems are on completely different planes. The Threadripper uses DDR4 memory over an eight-channel bus, delivering 204.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The EPYC uses DDR5 across a twelve-channel bus, offering 576.0 GB/s—nearly three times the bandwidth. This memory advantage is likely a major contributor to the EPYC’s performance in memory-sensitive applications like physics simulations. Both support ECC memory and offer 128 PCIe lanes, but the EPYC provides Gen 5 connectivity, while the Threadripper is limited to Gen 4.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, albeit nuanced, verdict. The AMD EPYC 9255 is the more capable all-around processor. It wins the majority of benchmark tests, including all Cinebench versions, indicating superior raw rendering performance per clock and per watt. Its massive 55.2% victory in the PassMark physics test and substantial 24.5% win in prime number finding suggest it is the superior choice for scientific computing, simulation, and workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth and the latest instruction sets. The higher single-thread score (9.1% lead) also makes it the better pick for lightly-threaded applications where per-core speed is paramount.

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, however, is not obsolete. Its wins are concentrated in areas that matter greatly for data-heavy workstation tasks. The 34.8% lead in encryption and 27% lead in data compression demonstrate that for database workloads, file servers, or content creation pipelines involving heavy compression, the 32-core Threadripper is a superior tool. Its higher core count provides a raw throughput advantage in these specific, highly parallel operations. For the user who prioritizes cryptographic tasks and data throughput over memory bandwidth, the Threadripper remains a formidable option.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The most obvious difference is the core and thread count: the Threadripper has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC has 24 cores and 48 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Threadripper at 3.60 GHz and the EPYC at 3.25 GHz. However, the boost clock reverses the order, with the EPYC boosting to 4.80 GHz versus the Threadripper’s 4.50 GHz. The TDP is another point of separation, with the Threadripper rated at 280 W and the EPYC at a more efficient 200 W. They use different sockets (WRX8 vs SP5) and come from different generations (Zen 3 vs Zen 5). The process node is a major differentiator, with the EPYC using a 4 nm node versus the Threadripper’s 7 nm. The transistor count is also drastically different, with the EPYC containing 33,260 million transistors across four 70.6 mm² dies, while the Threadripper has 16,600 million across four 81 mm² dies. Memory support is a generational leap, as the Threadripper uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, while the EPYC uses DDR5 on a twelve-channel bus, leading to a bandwidth difference of 204.8 GB/s versus 576.0 GB/s. Finally, the PCIe interface differs, with the Threadripper offering Gen 4 and the EPYC offering Gen 5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9255 has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: In which major benchmark does the EPYC 9255 have its largest advantage?

A: The EPYC 9255’s largest win is in the PassMark physics test, scoring 9,740 against the Threadripper’s 4,360, a 55.2% difference.

Q: Is the Threadripper PRO 5975WX better at any computational task?

A: Yes, the data shows it is significantly better at data encryption, with a 34.8% lead, and data compression, with a 27% lead over the EPYC 9255.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The EPYC 9255 supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus, providing 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus, providing 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9255 has a higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the 4.50 GHz of the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX.

Q: How do their Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: They are very close. The EPYC 9255 scores 64,318, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX scores 64,021, giving the EPYC a slim 0.5% advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data creates a distinct use-case profile for each processor. The AMD EPYC 9255 is the winner for users who need the absolute best in memory bandwidth and the latest architectural features. Its dominance in physics simulation (55.2% lead) makes it the obvious choice for engineering, scientific research, and financial modeling. Its 24.5% lead in prime number finding also indicates a strength in cryptography and integer-heavy calculations. The higher single-thread performance (9.1% lead) means general workstation responsiveness and lightly-threaded applications will feel snappier on the EPYC. Its lower TDP (200 W vs 280 W) also makes it a more attractive option for dense server environments where power and cooling are a concern.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, while losing the overall benchmark count, is the clear winner for specific data-centric workloads. The 34.8% lead in encryption makes it a powerhouse for VPN gateways, secure file servers, or any application that requires heavy data scrambling. The 27% advantage in data compression is a boon for database administrators, video editors working with compressed codecs, or roles that handle large archives. Its 17.5% lead in integer math also suggests it is well-suited for general-purpose number crunching that doesn’t rely on the EPYC’s memory bandwidth advantage. In essence, if your work is about moving and protecting data, the Threadripper is the superior tool; if your work is about simulating and rendering data, the EPYC is the clear winner.