AMD EPYC 9375F vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9375F and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX are both high-core-count Zen 5 processors aimed at demanding professional workloads, yet the benchmark data reveals two very distinct performance profiles. While the EPYC 9375F claims victory in 15 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX delivers a decisive counterpunch in single-threaded tests. This analysis breaks down where each processor excels and what that means for specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in this comparison is the EPYC 9375F's dominance in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where it scores 1397 against the Threadripper's 752—a massive 85.8% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it is a category-defining gap that suggests the EPYC's architecture extracts substantially more throughput from integer-heavy computational loops. The gap narrows considerably elsewhere, but the EPYC maintains a consistent edge across nearly every other benchmark.

In the Cinebench suite, the EPYC 9375F wins all six tests by a uniform 0.5% margin. The multicore scores are 8205 vs 8162 in R15, 34188 vs 34009 in R20, and 81402 vs 80976 in R23. The single-core results are equally tight: 1158 vs 1152 in R15, 4826 vs 4801 in R20, and 11492 vs 11431 in R23. These are marginal differences, well within the range of run-to-run variance, but they do indicate that the EPYC's 32-core configuration edges out the Threadripper's 24-core setup even in lightly threaded workloads.

Moving to PassMark's specialized workloads, the EPYC's advantages grow more pronounced. In extended instructions, the EPYC scores 128296 versus 108753, a 18% lead. Physics processing shows a 19.8% gap (9019 vs 7529), and floating point math comes in at 13.4% ahead (260392 vs 229685). Integer math, data compression, and data encryption all show double-digit leads for the EPYC: 11.1%, 11.2%, and 11.3% respectively. Even random string sorting, which often favors higher clock speeds, goes to the EPYC by 7.7% (161091 vs 149617). The PassMark multithread score, a broader aggregate, shows a more modest 3.4% lead for the EPYC (95768 vs 92604).

However, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX secures one critical victory. In PassMark single-thread and singlethread tests (both scoring identically), it achieves 4551 against the EPYC's 3762—a 17.3% advantage. This is the largest delta in either direction and highlights the Threadripper's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to the EPYC's 4.80 GHz. For any workload that cannot fully utilize multiple cores, this single-thread advantage is transformative.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9375F is the clear winner in heavily parallel, throughput-oriented tasks. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide a 33% core count advantage over the Threadripper's 24 cores and 48 threads, which translates directly into superior performance in multi-threaded compute. The data confirms this: the EPYC leads in every PassMark multi-threaded workload, including physics (19.8% ahead), floating point math (13.4%), and extended instructions (18%). For scientific simulations, financial modeling, or any workload that scales across many cores, the EPYC's advantage is measurable and consistent.

The EPYC also wins in memory-intensive scenarios. Its twelve-channel memory bus delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Threadripper's eight-channel 409.6 GB/s. This 40% bandwidth advantage likely contributes to the EPYC's 11.2% lead in data compression and 11.3% lead in encryption, both of which are sensitive to memory throughput. The EPYC's larger 256 MB shared L3 cache, double the Threadripper's 128 MB, further bolsters its position in data-heavy workloads.

The Threadripper PRO 9965WX wins decisively in single-threaded performance. The 17.3% lead in PassMark single-thread testing is the single largest performance gap in this comparison. This advantage stems from its higher base clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.85 GHz) and boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.80 GHz). For applications like legacy software, single-threaded rendering pipelines, or interactive design tools that cannot parallelize effectively, the Threadripper is the faster processor. The Threadripper also holds a slight edge in the Cinebench single-core tests, though only by 0.5%, suggesting that the PassMark single-thread test is more sensitive to clock speed differences.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark's find prime numbers test, where the EPYC 9375F scores 1397 versus the Threadripper's 752, an 85.8% advantage for the EPYC. The largest gap in the Threadripper's favor is in PassMark single-thread testing, where it leads by 17.3% (4551 vs 3762).

Q: How do they compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The EPYC 9375F leads in both multicore (81402 vs 80976) and singlecore (11492 vs 11431) tests, with a 0.5% advantage in each.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX has both a higher base clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.85 GHz) and a higher boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.80 GHz) compared to the EPYC 9375F.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications?

A: The EPYC 9375F supports twelve-channel memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 9965WX supports eight-channel memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Is the Threadripper's single-thread advantage consistent across all tests?

A: No. The Threadripper wins PassMark single-thread by 17.3%, but the EPYC actually wins the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests by 0.5% each.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The EPYC 9375F has 32 cores and 64 threads, compared to 24 cores and 48 threads on the Threadripper. Clock speeds favor the Threadripper: its base clock is 4.20 GHz versus 3.85 GHz, and its boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. Thermal design power also differs, with the EPYC rated at 320 W and the Threadripper at 350 W.

Memory architecture diverges significantly. The EPYC uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. Cache configurations differ as well: the EPYC has 80 KB of L1 per core and 256 MB of shared L3, while the Threadripper has 64 KB of L1 per core and 128 MB of L3. Both have 1 MB of L2 per core.

The sockets are different—SP5 for the EPYC and sTR5 for the Threadripper. The EPYC is part of the EPYC 9005 series with the codename Turin, while the Threadripper is in the 9000 series with the codename Shimada Peak. The EPYC has a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper's multiplier is unlocked, enabling overclocking. Release dates also differ: the EPYC launched in October 2024, while the Threadripper launched in July 2025.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Zen 5 architecture and are manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process, but their physical implementations differ substantially. The EPYC 9375F uses an 8-chiplet design with 8x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 66,520 million transistors. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX uses a 4-chiplet design with 4x 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 33,260 million transistors. The EPYC's dual-chiplet count directly explains its larger core count and double L3 cache.

The EPYC's 256 MB shared L3 cache is a key architectural advantage, providing more on-die data storage for multi-threaded workloads. The Threadripper's 128 MB L3 is still generous but half the EPYC's capacity. Per-core L1 cache also differs, with the EPYC providing 80 KB per core versus 64 KB on the Threadripper.

Both support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), and neither has integrated graphics. Both are active production parts targeting the server and workstation market segment. The EPYC's architecture is optimized for scale-out server deployments with its twelve-channel memory, while the Threadripper's four-chiplet design with eight-channel memory targets workstation configurations where single-thread responsiveness carries more weight.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. The AMD EPYC 9375F is the superior processor for multi-threaded, throughput-intensive workloads. It wins 15 of 17 benchmarks, with its largest advantages in prime number finding (85.8%), physics processing (19.8%), and extended instructions (18%). Its 32 cores, 256 MB L3 cache, and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the choice for server virtualization, large-scale data processing, and heavily parallel scientific computing. The EPYC also holds a narrow but consistent edge in Cinebench multicore tests, making it the safer pick for render farms or batch processing.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX is the better option when single-thread performance is the priority. Its 17.3% lead in PassMark single-thread testing and higher clock speeds (4.20 GHz base, 5.40 GHz boost) make it ideal for interactive workloads, legacy applications, or any software with limited parallelization. The unlocked multiplier also offers flexibility for users who want to push clock speeds further. Its lower core count (24 vs 32) and smaller cache (128 MB vs 256 MB) mean it will trail the EPYC in multi-threaded tasks, but for a workstation where snappy single-thread response matters more than raw core count, the Threadripper is the data-backed choice.