AMD EPYC 9354 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9354 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX are both 32-core, 64-thread server/workstation processors that sit at the 98th percentile of all CPUs tracked in this database. The EPYC 9354 carries a higher average benchmark score of 126810 against the Threadripper’s 124171, a 2.1% gap in its favor, yet the Threadripper wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head tests while the EPYC wins only 4. This split reflects two very different design philosophies: the EPYC is a Zen 4 part built for scale-out server workloads with massive memory bandwidth, while the Threadripper is a Zen 3 workstation chip tuned for higher clock speeds and broad application performance. The data suggests that for most mainstream multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks, the Threadripper is the stronger choice, but the EPYC holds decisive advantages in a narrow set of compute patterns.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the better all-round performer for typical workstation workloads. It wins every Cinebench test—R15 multi-core 6453 vs 6221, R20 multi-core 26888 vs 25923, R23 multi-core 64021 vs 61722, and all single-core variants—plus PassMark’s multithread (75319 vs 72615), integer math (360156 vs 304828), floating-point math (202363 vs 188894), data compression (1293784 vs 1168626), data encryption (80453 vs 71400), and single-thread (3323 vs 2601). The Threadripper also leads in PassMark physics by a wide margin? No, actually the EPYC wins physics. So the Threadripper wins most, but the EPYC wins specific ones.

For users whose workloads align with the EPYC’s wins—extended instruction set handling (86176 vs 82850), prime number finding (934 vs 438), physics simulation (9281 vs 4360), and random string sorting (140690 vs 123527)—the EPYC 9354 is the clear pick. These are not niche micro-benchmarks; they represent real computational patterns. The EPYC’s 256 MB shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 at 460.8 GB/s likely drive its superiority in these memory-latency-sensitive and integer-heavy tasks. Conversely, the Threadripper’s higher base and boost clocks (3.60/4.50 GHz vs 3.25/3.80 GHz) explain its wins in most other tests.

Thus, the verdict is straightforward: choose the Threadripper PRO 5975WX for general-purpose rendering, encoding, encryption, and single-threaded responsiveness; choose the EPYC 9354 for workloads that stress extended instruction throughput, large working sets, or specific physics/prime-number algorithms. Both are 98th-percentile parts, so neither is a weak choice.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different architectures and process nodes. The EPYC 9354 uses Zen 4 (codename Genoa) on a 5 nm process, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses Zen 3 (codename Chagall PRO) on a 7 nm process. Both have 32 cores and 64 threads, but the cache hierarchy diverges. The EPYC has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB shared L3. The Threadripper also has 64 KB L1 per core but only 512 KB L2 per core and 128 MB L3. The EPYC’s L3 is double the Threadripper’s, and its L2 is also larger per core.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel interface, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Threadripper uses DDR4 over eight channels at 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The EPYC also has PCIe Gen 5 (128 lanes CPU-only), while the Threadripper has PCIe Gen 4 (also 128 lanes CPU-only). The sockets differ: SP5 for the EPYC, WRX8 for the Threadripper.

Clock speeds are notably higher on the Threadripper: base 3.60 GHz vs 3.25 GHz, boost 4.50 GHz vs 3.80 GHz. TDP is identical at 280 W for both. The EPYC was released on 2022-11-09, the Threadripper on 2022-03-07. The EPYC’s launch MSRP is $3420, the Threadripper’s is $3299 (stated once each). Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX dominates the Cinebench family, winning R15 multi-core by 3.6% (6453 vs 6221), R15 single-core by 3.5% (910 vs 878), R20 multi-core by 3.6% (26888 vs 25923), R20 single-core by 3.6% (3795 vs 3659), R23 multi-core by 3.6% (64021 vs 61722), and R23 single-core by 3.6% (9038 vs 8713). These consistent margins indicate that the Threadripper’s higher clocks give it a reliable advantage in both lightly and heavily threaded rendering workloads.

In PassMark, the Threadripper also wins multithread (75319 vs 72615, -3.6% for the EPYC), integer math (360156 vs 304828, -15.4%), floating-point math (202363 vs 188894, -6.7%), data compression (1293784 vs 1168626, -9.7%), data encryption (80453 vs 71400, -11.3%), and single-thread (3323 vs 2601, -21.7%). The single-thread margin is the largest of any test, reflecting the Threadripper’s 4.50 GHz boost.

The EPYC 9354 wins four tests. The most dramatic are passmark_find_prime_numbers (934 vs 438, a 113.2% advantage) and passmark_physics (9281 vs 4360, 112.9% advantage). It also wins random string sorting (140690 vs 123527, 13.9%) and extended instructions (86176 vs 82850, 4%). These wins suggest the EPYC’s larger L3 and faster memory subsystem matter most in algorithms that repeatedly access large datasets or rely on high-bandwidth instruction streams.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins every single-core test: Cinebench R15 910 vs 878, R20 3795 vs 3659, R23 9038 vs 8713, and PassMark single-thread 3323 vs 2601 (a 21.7% lead).

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9354 has 256 MB shared L3, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has 128 MB. The EPYC also has 1 MB L2 per core versus 512 KB on the Threadripper.

Q: Does the EPYC support faster memory?

A: Yes. The EPYC uses DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth; the Threadripper uses DDR4 over eight channels at 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC.

Q: Which CPU wins in physics simulation?

A: The EPYC 9354 wins PassMark physics by 112.9% (9281 vs 4360). It also wins prime number finding by 113.2% (934 vs 438).

Q: What about power consumption?

A: Both have a TDP of 280 W. No other power figures are provided.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the EPYC 9354 boosts to 3.80 GHz. The Threadripper also has a higher base clock (3.60 vs 3.25 GHz).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The biggest win for the Threadripper is PassMark single-thread, where it scores 3323 against the EPYC’s 2601, a 21.7% margin. Integer math follows with 360156 vs 304828 (-15.4% for the EPYC). Data encryption shows an 11.3% gap (80453 vs 71400), and data compression is 9.7% apart (1293784 vs 1168626). Floating-point math is 6.7% in the Threadripper’s favor (202363 vs 188894). All Cinebench tests show a consistent 3.6% lead for the Threadripper, and PassMark multithread is also 3.6% ahead (75319 vs 72615).

The EPYC’s wins are even more lopsided in the opposite direction. Prime number finding is 113.2% higher (934 vs 438), and physics is 112.9% higher (9281 vs 4360). Random string sorting is 13.9% ahead (140690 vs 123527), and extended instructions are 4% ahead (86176 vs 82850). These deltas are far larger than any of the Threadripper’s wins, indicating that the EPYC’s advantages are concentrated in specific algorithmic families rather than broad application performance.

The head-to-head tally is 13 wins for the Threadripper and 4 for the EPYC. However, the EPYC’s average benchmark score is 126810 versus 124171 for the Threadripper, a 2.1% difference, because the EPYC’s wins are in heavier-weighted tests (or the average includes other benchmarks not in the head-to-head list). In any case, the data clearly shows that the Threadripper is the more consistent performer across the tested workloads.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two CPUs, based solely on the provided data:

• Base clock: EPYC 9354: 3.25 GHz; Threadripper PRO 5975WX: 3.60 GHz
• Boost clock: EPYC 9354: 3.80 GHz; Threadripper: 4.50 GHz
• Socket: EPYC: AMD Socket SP5; Threadripper: AMD Socket WRX8
• Architecture: EPYC: Zen 4; Threadripper: Zen 3
• Codename: EPYC: Genoa; Threadripper: Chagall PRO
• Process node: EPYC: 5 nm; Threadripper: 7 nm
• L2 cache (per core): EPYC: 1 MB; Threadripper: 512 KB
• L3 cache: EPYC: 256 MB shared; Threadripper: 128 MB
• Memory support: EPYC: DDR5; Threadripper: DDR4
• Memory bus: EPYC: Twelve-channel; Threadripper: Eight-channel
• Memory bandwidth: EPYC: 460.8 GB/s; Threadripper: 204.8 GB/s
• PCIe version: EPYC: Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only); Threadripper: Gen 4, 128 Lanes (CPU only)
• Release date: EPYC: 2022-11-09; Threadripper: 2022-03-07
• Launch MSRP: EPYC: $3420; Threadripper: $3299

All other listed specifications—cores, threads, TDP, L1 cache, ECC support, market segment, production status, and unlocked multiplier—are identical.