AMD EPYC 9375F vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX and AMD EPYC 9375F are both 99th-percentile processors, but they achieve that status through fundamentally different designs. The 3995WX is a 64-core Zen 2 desktop behemoth, while the 9375F is a 32-core Zen 5 server chip. Across 17 head-to-head benchmarks, the EPYC 9375F wins 12 and the Threadripper wins 5, yet the overall average benchmark score favors the Threadripper (171748 vs 162497). This split reveals that the 9375F dominates in latency-sensitive and single-threaded tasks, while the 3995WX leverages its massive core count for throughput-oriented workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The EPYC 9375F’s victory margin is remarkably consistent across Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the 9375F wins both single-core and multi-core by exactly 12.4% in every instance. The multi-core scores are particularly telling: the 9375F posts 8205 in R15, 34188 in R20, and 81402 in R23, versus the 3995WX’s 7190, 29961, and 71338 respectively. This uniformity suggests the 9375F’s architectural advantage in instructions-per-clock is not workload-dependent—it simply executes more work per cycle across the board.

Single-core performance shows an even larger gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the 9375F scores 11492 against the 3995WX’s 10071, a 12.4% lead. The PassMark single-thread test magnifies this disparity: the 9375F achieves 3762 versus 2595, a 31% advantage. This is the largest single-benchmark delta in the 9375F’s favor, and it directly reflects the 9375F’s higher 4.80 GHz boost clock versus 4.20 GHz on the 3995WX, combined with the newer Zen 5 architecture.

The 9375F also excels in integer-heavy and physics workloads. PassMark physics shows a 39% lead (9019 vs 5498), and PassMark find prime numbers reveals a massive 59.5% advantage (1397 vs 566). The prime-number test is particularly sensitive to per-core efficiency, and the 9375F’s result indicates that its 32 cores are individually far more capable than the 3995WX’s 64 cores at this type of computation.

However, the 3995WX fights back decisively in memory and encryption-heavy workloads. PassMark data encryption shows the 3995WX winning by 69% (124433 vs 73634)—the largest margin in either direction. Data compression also favors the 3995WX by 23.1% (1841292 vs 1496149), and integer math by 26.4% (490116 vs 387901). These results suggest that the 3995WX’s 64 cores, when fully engaged in parallel data manipulation, overwhelm the 9375F’s 32 cores despite the latter’s per-core superiority.

Floating-point math is a closer contest: the 3995WX wins by 6.7% (277715 vs 260392), and random string sorting goes to the 3995WX by 17.1% (188574 vs 161091). The extended instructions benchmark is one of the few where the 9375F wins by a moderate margin, taking a 17% lead (128296 vs 106423). The overall PassMark multithread score slightly favors the 9375F at 95768 vs 83928, a 12.4% difference that mirrors the Cinebench multi-core results.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9375F is the clear choice for workloads that depend on single-threaded speed or per-core performance. Its 31% lead in PassMark single-thread and 59.5% lead in prime-number finding make it superior for legacy code, lightly threaded applications, and tasks where each core must work independently. The 12.4% Cinebench wins across all versions confirm that rendering and 3D modeling software, which often scale with per-core efficiency, will run noticeably faster on the 9375F. Its 39% advantage in PassMark physics also points to simulation and physics-based computation as a strong use case.

The 3995WX dominates when raw parallel throughput is paramount. The 69% encryption lead and 26.4% integer math advantage indicate that cryptography, compression, and large-scale data processing benefit from its 64 cores. The 23.1% data compression win and 17.1% random string sorting lead further cement its position for database operations and file archiving. For floating-point math, the 3995WX’s 6.7% edge, while modest, means scientific computing with heavy FPU usage will slightly favor the older chip.

The distinction is architectural: the 3995WX wins by out-muscling with core count, while the 9375F wins by out-executing per core. In mixed workloads, the 9375F’s 12.4% lead in PassMark multithread suggests that modern multi-threaded applications often prefer fewer, faster cores over more numerous slower ones. The 3995WX’s wins are concentrated in data-heavy tasks that scale linearly with core count, whereas the 9375F wins across a broader spectrum of general-purpose computing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX has an average benchmark score of 171748, while the AMD EPYC 9375F scores 162497. The 3995WX is 5.7% ahead of the 9375F in this metric.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9375F in single-threaded tasks?

A: In PassMark single-thread, the 9375F scores 3762 against the 3995WX’s 2595, a 31% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows a 12.4% lead for the 9375F (11492 vs 10071).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data encryption, where the 3995WX leads by 69% (124433 vs 73634). The second-largest is PassMark find prime numbers, where the 9375F leads by 59.5% (1397 vs 566).

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

A: The 9375F wins all multi-core Cinebench tests by 12.4%: R15 (8205 vs 7190), R20 (34188 vs 29961), and R23 (81402 vs 71338).

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

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F wins 12 of the 17 benchmarks, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins 5.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the 3995WX and the 9375F support ECC memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ fundamentally in core configuration. The 3995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads. Clock speeds diverge significantly: the 3995WX runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.20 GHz boost, whereas the 9375F operates at 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. Thermal design power also differs, with the 3995WX rated at 280W and the 9375F at 320W.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The 3995WX uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the 9375F uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The 9375F’s memory bandwidth is nearly three times higher, which contributes to its performance in memory-intensive tasks. Both support ECC memory.

Cache hierarchies are similar in total L3 size (256 MB) but differ per core. The 3995WX has 64 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, while the 9375F has 80 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. The 9375F’s larger per-core caches support its higher per-core performance. Both have 128 PCIe lanes, but the 3995WX uses Gen 4 while the 9375F uses Gen 5.

Physical specifications also differ. The 3995WX uses AMD Socket WRX8, while the 9375F uses AMD Socket SP5. The 3995WX is a desktop part released on 2020-07-13, while the 9375F is a server/workstation part released on 2024-10-09. The 3995WX has a launch MSRP of $5489, and the 9375F has a launch MSRP of $5306. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The 3995WX is built on Zen 2 architecture (codename Castle Peak) using a 7 nm process at TSMC, with 30,400 million transistors across 8x 74 mm² dies. The 9375F uses the much newer Zen 5 architecture (codename Turin) on a 4 nm process at TSMC, with 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The 9375F packs more than twice the transistors into a smaller total die area, reflecting the denser 4 nm node.

The generations are far apart: the 3995WX is from the Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 2) generation, while the 9375F is from the EPYC (Zen 5) generation. This architectural gap explains the per-core performance differences. The 9375F’s larger L1 (80 KB vs 64 KB) and L2 (1 MB vs 512 KB) caches per core provide more data locality, reducing memory latency. The L3 cache is 256 MB in both, but the 3995WX lists it as 256 MB total while the 9375F lists it as 256 MB shared.

PCIe generation differences matter for I/O throughput. The 3995WX provides PCIe Gen 4, while the 9375F provides PCIe Gen 5, doubling the per-lane bandwidth. Memory technology also differs fundamentally: DDR4 versus DDR5, with the 9375F’s twelve-channel DDR5 providing 576.0 GB/s versus the 3995WX’s 204.8 GB/s. The 9375F’s memory subsystem is a generation ahead, which is critical for data-heavy server workloads.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD EPYC 9375F if your priority is per-core performance and modern architecture. It wins 12 of 17 benchmarks, including all Cinebench tests by 12.4% and PassMark single-thread by 31%. Its 59.5% lead in prime-number finding and 39% lead in physics make it superior for scientific simulation, legacy code, and lightly threaded applications. The 9375F’s DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth and PCIe Gen 5 also future-proofs I/O-intensive workloads. It is the better all-rounder for general-purpose computing, despite having half the cores.

Choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX if your workloads scale linearly with core count and demand massive parallel throughput. Its 69% encryption lead, 26.4% integer math advantage, and 23.1% data compression win make it indispensable for cryptography, data compression, and large-scale data processing. The 3995WX also wins floating-point math by 6.7% and random string sorting by 17.1%. Its higher average benchmark score (171748 vs 162497) reflects that its 64 cores, when fully utilized, can outproduce the 9375F’s 32 faster cores in specific parallel tasks.

The data does not support a single universal winner. The 9375F is the better choice for most users due to its broader benchmark dominance and modern Zen 5 efficiency. The 3995WX is a specialized tool for extreme parallel data workloads where core count trumps core speed. If you run encryption or compression at scale, the 3995WX’s 69% and 23.1% leads are decisive. For everything else, the 9375F’s consistent 12.4-31% advantages make it the safer, faster option.