AMD EPYC 9375F vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX and AMD EPYC 9375F are both 32-core Zen 5 processors aimed at high-end workstations and servers, but the data shows they are tuned for very different workloads. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX dominates the majority of the benchmark suite, winning 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC 9375F takes two decisive victories in specialized tasks. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, use-case scenarios, and architectural differences to help determine which processor fits specific needs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the Threadripper PRO 9975WX’s consistent lead across nearly every Cinebench test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 93,553 against the EPYC’s 81,402, a 14.9% advantage. The same 14.9% delta appears across all Cinebench tests, including R15 multi-core (9,430 vs 8,205), R15 single-core (1,331 vs 1,158), R20 multi-core (39,292 vs 34,188), R20 single-core (5,546 vs 4,826), and R23 single-core (13,207 vs 11,492). This uniform margin suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than workload-specific optimization.

The PassMark suite tells a similar story, though with varying margins. In integer math, the Threadripper leads 461,724 to 387,901, a 19% edge. Floating-point math shows 304,833 vs 260,392, a 17.1% win. Single-thread performance is also notably higher on the Threadripper: 4,408 vs 3,762, representing a 17.2% improvement. Data encryption shows the largest single delta at 15.5% (85,035 vs 73,634), while data compression is closer at 9.9% (1,644,573 vs 1,496,149). Random string sorting favors the Threadripper by 16.7% (188,014 vs 161,091), and extended instructions by 7.4% (137,733 vs 128,296). The multithread score is 9.5% higher on the Threadripper (104,902 vs 95,768).

The EPYC 9375F’s two wins are dramatic and reveal its specialized strengths. In the PassMark find prime numbers test, the EPYC scores 1,397 against the Threadripper’s 620 — a massive 55.6% advantage for the EPYC. This is the single largest delta in the entire comparison. The EPYC also wins the physics test with 9,019 vs 7,288, a 19.2% margin. These results indicate the EPYC’s architecture handles certain mathematical operations and physics calculations significantly better, despite losing in broader multi-core and single-thread workloads.

Looking at the broader context, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX sits at the 98th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 182,700. Its nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 8534P (avg score 185,092, delta -1.3%), the AMD EPYC 7763 (179,916, delta 1.5%), the Intel Xeon 6740E (187,718, delta -2.7%), and the Intel Xeon 6740P (176,227, delta 3.7%). The EPYC 9375F also holds the 98th percentile with an average score of 162,497, and its nearest rivals are the AMD EPYC 7663 (161,973, delta 0.3%), the AMD EPYC 9355P (160,358, delta 1.3%), the Intel Xeon 676X (158,540, delta 2.5%), and the AMD EPYC 7C13 (167,788, delta -3.2%).

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the clear winner for general-purpose workstation workloads. Its consistent 14.9% lead across all Cinebench tests, both single and multi-core, makes it the better choice for rendering, video encoding, and 3D modeling tasks that rely heavily on Cinebench-style performance. The 17.1% advantage in floating-point math and 19% lead in integer math further cement its position for scientific computing and financial modeling. The 17.2% single-thread advantage means it also excels in applications that are not perfectly parallelized, such as CAD software or legacy code bases.

The EPYC 9375F’s wins point to specific server-side strengths. The 55.6% lead in prime number finding is particularly relevant for cryptography, number theory research, and certain types of simulations. The 19.2% win in physics makes it the better option for physics-based simulations, collision detection, and related computational physics workloads. These are narrow but deep advantages that matter in specialized server environments.

For data-heavy tasks, the Threadripper’s 9.9% lead in data compression and 15.5% lead in data encryption make it the stronger choice for database workloads and secure file handling. The 16.7% advantage in random string sorting also helps with sorting algorithms and data processing pipelines. However, the EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bus (versus eight-channel on the Threadripper) and higher memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s suggest it handles memory-intensive server workloads more efficiently, even if the benchmark scores don’t directly reflect that.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9375F has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Threadripper PRO 9975WX and the EPYC 9375F have ECC memory support set to true.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has 128 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 9375F has 256 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: Both processors offer Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), so they are equal in this regard.

Q: How many memory channels does each processor support?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX supports eight-channel memory, while the EPYC 9375F supports twelve-channel memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has an average benchmark score of 182,700, compared to the EPYC 9375F’s 162,497.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 9375F runs at 3.85 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The Threadripper has a TDP of 350 watts, versus 320 watts for the EPYC. They use different sockets: the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5.

Memory configuration differs significantly. The Threadripper uses an eight-channel memory bus with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR5 memory. The Threadripper has a larger L1 cache at 64 KB per core compared to the EPYC’s 80 KB per core, though the EPYC has a much larger L3 cache at 256 MB shared versus 128 MB for the Threadripper. Both have 1 MB of L2 cache per core.

The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9375F is locked. The release dates differ: the Threadripper launched on 2025-07-22, while the EPYC launched on 2024-10-09. The launch MSRP for the Threadripper is $4099, and for the EPYC it is $5306. The part numbers are 100-000000723 for the Threadripper and 100-000001197 for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on AMD’s Zen 5 architecture using a 4 nm process at TSMC, but they have distinct codenames and physical layouts. The Threadripper PRO 9975WX has the codename Shimada Peak and belongs to the Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5 (Shimada Peak)) generation. The EPYC 9375F has the codename Turin and belongs to the EPYC (Zen 5 (Turin)) generation.

The physical construction differs notably. The Threadripper uses 4x 70.6 mm² die sizes with 33,260 million transistors, while the EPYC uses 8x 70.6 mm² dies with 66,520 million transistors. This means the EPYC has twice the number of dies and roughly double the transistor count, despite having the same core count. The EPYC’s larger physical footprint and transistor budget contribute to its larger L3 cache and twelve-channel memory support.

The L1 cache configuration differs: the Threadripper has 64 KB per core, while the EPYC has 80 KB per core. This is a meaningful architectural difference that may explain the EPYC’s superior prime number finding performance. Both processors have the same number of cores (32) and threads (64), and both support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are classified as Server/Workstation market segments with active production status.

The Verdict

The data clearly shows the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the better choice for most workstation and general-purpose compute workloads. Its 14.9% lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with 17.1% and 19% advantages in floating-point and integer math respectively, make it the superior processor for rendering, content creation, and scientific computing. The 17.2% single-thread advantage is particularly valuable for applications that don’t scale perfectly with core count. For users building a high-end workstation where Cinebench-style performance matters, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX is the clear winner, despite its lower launch MSRP of $4099 compared to the EPYC’s $5306.

The AMD EPYC 9375F is the better choice for specialized server workloads that benefit from its architectural strengths. The 55.6% lead in prime number finding makes it essential for cryptography and number-theoretic computations, while the 19.2% win in physics makes it the go-to for physics simulations. Its larger L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB) and higher memory bandwidth (576.0 GB/s vs 409.6 GB/s) also make it more suitable for memory-hungry server applications, even though the benchmark scores don’t always reflect this. The EPYC’s twelve-channel memory bus and higher transistor count (66,520 million vs 33,260 million) indicate a design optimized for server-scale throughput rather than raw clock speed.

For most users, the Threadripper PRO 9975WX’s dominant benchmark performance and lower launch MSRP make it the practical choice. The EPYC 9375F appeals to a narrower audience with specific requirements for prime number processing or physics-heavy workloads, where its specialized advantages are worth the higher cost and locked multiplier. The choice ultimately comes down to workload: if the application is general-purpose compute, choose the Threadripper; if it’s specialized server-side math, choose the EPYC.