AMD EPYC 9275F vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9275F and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX are both high-end AMD processors aimed at demanding professional workloads, but they represent different generations and design philosophies. The EPYC 9275F, built on the newer Zen 5 architecture and released later, posts a higher average benchmark score of 133174 compared to the Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s 124171, a 7.3% advantage. However, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX counters with more cores and wins in several specific workloads. The data indicates a clear split: the EPYC 9275F dominates in single-threaded performance, physics simulations, and prime number finding, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX leads in integer math, data compression, encryption, and floating-point math. Both processors sit in the 98th percentile of all CPUs, placing them at the top tier of available hardware.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD EPYC 9275F is the superior choice for workloads that benefit from high clock speeds and modern architecture efficiency. It wins 13 out of 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including all Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 71927 against the Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s 64021, a 12.3% lead. Single-core performance is also decisively in its favor, with a 12.3% advantage in Cinebench R23 single-core (10154 vs 9038). The EPYC 9275F is the pick for rendering, simulation, and any task where per-core performance and newer instruction sets are critical. Its 126.3% lead in PassMark find prime numbers (991 vs 438) and 177.3% lead in PassMark physics (12089 vs 4360) are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, indicating exceptional strength in integer-heavy and physics-based calculations.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX, despite losing the overall average score battle, is the better option for specific, highly parallel workloads that leverage its 32 cores and 64 threads. It wins 4 of the 17 benchmarks, with its most significant victory being a 22.1% lead in PassMark data encryption (80453 vs 62664). It also leads in PassMark integer math by 11.8% (360156 vs 317777) and in data compression by 6.3% (1293784 vs 1212560). For users whose primary tasks are encryption, compression, and heavy integer math, the extra cores of the Threadripper PRO 5975WX provide a tangible benefit that outweighs its architectural disadvantage.

The choice hinges on workload type. If the priority is the best all-around performance, fastest single-threaded responsiveness, and modern platform features, the EPYC 9275F is the clear winner based on the data. If the priority is maximizing throughput in specific multi-threaded integer and encryption tasks, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX holds the edge. The EPYC 9275F’s 7.3% higher average benchmark score and 13-4 win record make it the more versatile processor, but the Threadripper PRO 5975WX remains a specialist for certain server and workstation tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has an average benchmark score of 133174, which is 7.3% higher than the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s score of 124171.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX have more cores?

A: Yes, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: In which benchmark does the EPYC 9275F show its largest advantage?

A: The EPYC 9275F’s largest win is in the PassMark physics test, where it scores 12089 compared to the Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s 4360, a 177.3% advantage.

Q: What is the largest benchmark win for the Threadripper PRO 5975WX?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s largest win is in PassMark data encryption, scoring 80453 versus the EPYC 9275F’s 62664, a 22.1% lead.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD EPYC 9275F has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is higher than the Threadripper PRO 5975WX’s boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9275F and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX are in the 98th percentile of all CPUs.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9275F and Threadripper PRO 5975WX are built on fundamentally different architectures. The EPYC 9275F uses the Zen 5 architecture with the codename "Turin," while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses the older Zen 3 architecture with the codename "Chagall PRO." This generational gap is reflected in the manufacturing process: the EPYC 9275F is built on a 4 nm process node, whereas the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses a 7 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC.

The transistor count differs dramatically. The EPYC 9275F contains 66,520 million transistors across a die size of 8x 70.6 mm². In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has only 16,600 million transistors on a die size of 4x 81 mm². This difference in transistor density and die configuration contributes to the EPYC's performance advantages.

Cache organization also varies significantly. The EPYC 9275F has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX has smaller per-core caches: 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2, with a total of 128 MB of L3 cache. The EPYC's larger L3 cache is double that of the Threadripper, which likely helps in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture is another key differentiator. The EPYC 9275F supports DDR5 memory with a twelve-channel memory bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX supports DDR4 memory with an eight-channel bus, offering a lower memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: the EPYC 9275F has Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has Gen 4 with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows clear differences between these two AMD processors. The EPYC 9275F has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds favor the EPYC: its base clock is 4.10 GHz and boost clock is 4.80 GHz, compared to the Threadripper's base of 3.60 GHz and boost of 4.50 GHz. The TDP is also higher for the EPYC at 320 watts, versus 280 watts for the Threadripper.

The sockets are incompatible. The EPYC 9275F uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses AMD Socket WRX8. Memory support differs as noted: DDR5 for the EPYC and DDR4 for the Threadripper. The memory bus is twelve-channel for the EPYC and eight-channel for the Threadripper, with corresponding bandwidth figures of 576.0 GB/s and 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

The process node, transistor count, and die size are all different, as detailed in the architecture section. The EPYC 9275F was released on 2024-10-09, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX was released earlier on 2022-03-07. Both processors have a launch MSRP: the EPYC 9275F at $3439 and the Threadripper PRO 5975WX at $3299. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both lack integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results favor the EPYC 9275F in most categories. In Cinebench tests, the EPYC 9275F wins all six comparisons with consistent 12.4% or 12.3% leads. Specifically, Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 7250 vs 6453, single-core shows 1023 vs 910, both with a 12.4% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 30209 vs 26888, and single-core shows 4264 vs 3795, also at 12.4%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 71927 vs 64021, and single-core shows 10154 vs 9038, at 12.3% deltas.

In PassMark tests, the results are mixed. The EPYC 9275F wins in extended instructions (94889 vs 82850, a 14.5% lead), find prime numbers (991 vs 438, a massive 126.3% lead), multithread (84620 vs 75319, a 12.3% lead), physics (12089 vs 4360, a 177.3% lead), random string sorting (144037 vs 123527, a 16.6% lead), and single-thread (3810 vs 3323, a 14.7% lead). The Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins in data compression (1293784 vs 1212560, a 6.3% lead), data encryption (80453 vs 62664, a 22.1% lead), floating-point math (202363 vs 201888, a 0.2% lead), and integer math (360156 vs 317777, an 11.8% lead).

The largest delta in either direction is the EPYC 9275F's 177.3% win in physics, followed by its 126.3% win in find prime numbers. The smallest delta is the Threadripper's 0.2% win in floating-point math, which is nearly a tie. Overall, the EPYC 9275F wins 13 benchmarks, and the Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins 4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9275F is the dominant processor for most workloads. Its consistent 12.4% lead across all Cinebench versions indicates superiority in both multi-core and single-core rendering tasks. The 177.3% lead in PassMark physics makes it the obvious choice for physics simulations and related calculations. Its 126.3% lead in find prime numbers suggests strong integer processing capabilities in specific algorithmic tasks. The 14.7% lead in single-thread performance and 14.5% lead in extended instructions indicate better per-core efficiency and newer instruction set support. The EPYC 9275F also wins in multithread performance by 12.3% and random string sorting by 16.6%, making it the better all-around processor for general professional use.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins in four specific areas, all related to its higher core count. Its 22.1% lead in data encryption is significant, making it the preferred choice for encryption-heavy workloads. The 11.8% lead in integer math and 6.3% lead in data compression further indicate strength in data processing and manipulation tasks. The 0.2% lead in floating-point math is marginal but shows the Threadripper can hold its own in that category. These wins suggest the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is better suited for database operations, file compression, and cryptographic tasks where parallel core utilization is more important than per-core speed. For users with workloads specifically in these areas, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX's extra 8 cores provide a measurable advantage.