AMD EPYC 9335 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD EPYC 9335 posts an average benchmark score of 194,228, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX averages 171,748. The EPYC 9335 also sits at the 99th percentile of all CPUs, compared to the Threadripper's 98th.

Q: How big is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The EPYC 9335 wins single-thread testing by a 5.3% margin, scoring 2,732 in PassMark single-thread versus 2,595 for the Threadripper PRO 3995WX. This is the EPYC's only head-to-head win alongside one other test.

Q: What is the largest performance difference in the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The biggest delta is in PassMark physics, where the Threadripper PRO 3995WX scores 5,498 against the EPYC's 1,905 — a 65.4% advantage. Data encryption is close behind, with the Threadripper leading by 49.2%.

Q: How do the core counts differ?

A: The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, exactly double the EPYC 9335's 32 cores and 64 threads. This core advantage drives most of the multi-threaded benchmark wins.

Q: What are the memory specifications?

A: The EPYC 9335 uses DDR5 memory on a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor is newer and what process node does it use?

A: The EPYC 9335 was released in October 2024 and is built on TSMC's 4 nm process. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX dates from July 2020 and uses TSMC's 7 nm node. The EPYC also has a 4 nm process advantage that contributes to its higher clock speeds.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins nine of the eleven head-to-head benchmarks, while the AMD EPYC 9335 wins only two. If your workload is heavily multi-threaded and core-count hungry, the Threadripper's 64 cores and 128 threads make it the dominant choice. Its wins are not marginal — it leads by double digits in data compression (34.7%), integer math (29.3%), random string sorting (38.2%), and floating-point math (17.9%). The physics test is a blowout at 65.4%.

However, the EPYC 9335 is not without a compelling case. It wins single-thread performance by 5.3%, and its average benchmark score is higher (194,228 versus 171,748). It also offers a modern platform with DDR5, twelve-channel memory, and PCIe Gen 5. For server deployments where per-core efficiency, memory bandwidth, and platform longevity matter more than raw core count, the EPYC 9335 is the right pick. The Threadripper is a workstation-class part aimed at desktop content creation; the EPYC is a server part. The verdict from the data: choose the Threadripper for maximum parallel throughput, choose the EPYC for newer architecture, higher single-thread performance, and superior memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX dominates the PassMark suite. In data compression, it scores 1,841,292 versus 1,203,096 — a 34.7% lead. Data encryption is even more lopsided: 124,433 versus 63,159, a 49.2% gap. Integer math shows the Threadripper at 490,116 against 346,291 (29.3% ahead). Floating-point math is 277,715 versus 228,123, a 17.9% advantage. Random string sorting goes to the Threadripper at 188,574 against 116,608, a 38.2% margin. Find prime numbers: 566 versus 340, a 39.9% win. Multithread score: 83,928 versus 65,811, a 21.6% lead. Physics: 5,498 versus 1,905, a massive 65.4% gap. Extended instructions are nearly tied, with the Threadripper at 106,423 and the EPYC at 105,706 — only a 0.7% difference.

The EPYC 9335's two wins both come in single-thread tests (listed twice in the data): 2,732 versus 2,595, a 5.3% margin. That is the only category where the newer Zen 5 architecture shows a clear per-core advantage. The data suggests the Threadripper's core-count advantage overwhelms the EPYC's architectural efficiency in nearly every parallel workload, but the EPYC's per-core speed is real and measurable.

Notably, the EPYC's average benchmark score is 194,228, which is 13% higher than the Threadripper's 171,748 — yet the head-to-head results favor the Threadripper. This discrepancy reflects the fact that the average score includes tests not in the head-to-head set, and the EPYC's nearest rivals (Intel Xeon 6741P at 194,901, Intel Xeon 678X at 193,477) are all within a few percent, whereas the Threadripper's rivals (AMD EPYC 7763 at 179,916, Intel Xeon 6740P at 176,227) are closely clustered too. The EPYC's percentile rank (99th) versus the Threadripper's (98th) confirms the EPYC is slightly better positioned against the broader CPU market.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the defining difference: 32 cores / 64 threads for the EPYC 9335 versus 64 cores / 128 threads for the Threadripper PRO 3995WX. Clock speeds favor the EPYC: base clock 3.00 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, boost clock 4.40 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. TDP is lower on the EPYC at 210 W versus 280 W. Sockets differ: AMD Socket SP5 for the EPYC, AMD Socket WRX8 for the Threadripper. Memory support is DDR5 for the EPYC and DDR4 for the Threadripper, with memory buses of twelve-channel versus eight-channel. Memory bandwidth is a major gap: 576.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. PCIe generation differs: Gen 5 for the EPYC, Gen 4 for the Threadripper, both with 128 lanes (CPU only). Market segments differ: Server/Workstation for the EPYC, Desktop for the Threadripper. Release dates are October 2024 and July 2020. The EPYC has a launch MSRP of $3178; the Threadripper has a launch MSRP of $5489. Both are locked multipliers and both support ECC memory.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9335 is built on Zen 5 architecture with the Turin codename, part of the EPYC 9005 series. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC with 33,260 million transistors across 4x 70.6 mm² dies. Cache layout: 80 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 128 MB shared L3. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses Zen 2 with the Castle Peak codename, part of the Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series. It is on a 7 nm process with 30,400 million transistors across 8x 74 mm² dies. Cache layout: 64 KB L1 per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 256 MB L3. The Threadripper has double the L3 cache (256 MB versus 128 MB), but the EPYC has newer architecture, a smaller process node, and higher per-core cache amounts. The EPYC's transistor count is higher (33,260 million versus 30,400 million) despite fewer cores, reflecting the denser 4 nm process. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics, and the EPYC's integrated graphics is listed as N/A. The EPYC's die configuration uses 4 dies versus the Threadripper's 8 dies, which affects how each processor accesses its L3 cache and memory controllers.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins in: data compression (34.7% ahead), data encryption (49.2%), extended instructions (0.7%), find prime numbers (39.9%), floating-point math (17.9%), integer math (29.3%), multithread (21.6%), physics (65.4%), and random string sorting (38.2%). This is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count: video rendering, 3D simulation, scientific computing, batch data processing, and any task that can use 128 threads. The 256 MB L3 cache also helps with large working sets. If your application is bottlenecked by parallel throughput, the data says this chip wins decisively.

AMD EPYC 9335 wins in: single-thread performance (5.3% ahead) and the overall average benchmark score (194,228 versus 171,748). It also wins on platform features: DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth (2.8x the Threadripper's bandwidth), PCIe Gen 5, and a 99th percentile ranking versus 98th. The 4 nm Zen 5 architecture delivers higher clocks at lower TDP (210 W versus 280 W). This is the pick for latency-sensitive single-threaded workloads, memory-bandwidth-bound tasks, and server environments where the twelve-channel DDR5 interface matters. The EPYC's nearest rivals are Intel Xeon parts within 0.3% to 4.9%, so it is competitively positioned against the server field, while the Threadripper faces similar competition from EPYC and Xeon parts. The EPYC's launch MSRP is also lower, though the Threadripper's higher price reflects its 64-core configuration.