AMD EPYC 9384X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX and AMD EPYC 9384X are both 32-core, 64-thread processors aimed at high-end workstation and server workloads, but they come from different generations and platforms. Benchmark data shows the Threadripper PRO 5975WX winning 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, while the EPYC 9384X takes two specific workloads by large margins. This analysis breaks down the numbers, architecture differences, and where each chip fits based on measured performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX dominates the Cinebench suite, posting 6,453 in R15 multi-core versus the EPYC's 5,968, an 8.1% advantage. The same 8.1% delta appears across R20 and R23 multi-core and single-core tests: R20 multi-core scores 26,888 vs 24,870, R23 multi-core scores 64,021 vs 59,215, and single-core R23 scores 9,038 vs 8,359. This consistency suggests the Threadripper's higher boost clock (4.50 GHz vs 3.90 GHz) carries the day in lightly threaded and fully threaded rendering workloads.

The gap widens in integer and floating-point math. PassMark integer math shows 360,156 for the Threadripper against 297,833 for the EPYC, a 20.9% lead. Floating-point math is 202,363 vs 174,630, a 15.9% edge. Data compression favors the Threadripper by 15.5% (1,293,784 vs 1,119,983), and data encryption by 10.8% (80,453 vs 72,631). Extended instruction throughput is 82,850 vs 74,363, an 11.4% win. Random string sorting is closer, with the Threadripper ahead 123,527 vs 119,440, a 3.4% margin. PassMark single-thread performance is 3,323 vs 3,015, a 10.2% advantage, and multithread performance is 75,319 vs 69,665, an 8.1% win.

The EPYC 9384X takes two clear victories. In PassMark physics, it scores 9,332 versus the Threadripper's 4,360 — a 53.3% higher result. In find prime numbers, it scores 596 vs 438, a 26.5% advantage. These are not small margins; they are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they point to workloads that benefit from the EPYC's massive L3 cache (768 MB vs 128 MB) rather than raw clock speed.

Overall, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX averages 124,171 across all benchmark scores, while the EPYC 9384X averages 120,427 — a 3.1% gap in the Threadripper's favor. Both sit at the 98th percentile of all CPUs, and the Threadripper's nearest rival list includes the EPYC 9384X at a +3.1% delta, while the EPYC's list shows the Threadripper at −3.0% delta.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split. If your workload is dominated by rendering, compilation, data compression, encryption, or general integer/floating-point math, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the stronger choice — it wins 15 of 17 tests, often by double-digit percentages. The Cinebench results alone (8.1% across the board) make it the safer bet for any multi-threaded CPU-bound application.

The EPYC 9384X is not a general-purpose winner here, but its two wins are so large that they define its niche. The 53.3% lead in PassMark physics and 26.5% lead in prime number finding suggest workloads that are heavily cache-dependent — think physics simulations, certain numerical methods, or database-style lookups that repeatedly hit the L3. If your application fits that profile, the EPYC's 768 MB of shared L3 and 460.8 GB/s of DDR5 bandwidth (twelve-channel) are worth the trade-off in raw clock speed.

For most workstation builders, the Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the practical pick: higher clocks, lower TDP (280 W vs 320 W), and a 3.1% higher average score. The EPYC 9384X makes sense only when you know your workload is cache-bound and can exploit the 768 MB L3 and twelve-channel memory bus.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different process nodes: the Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses TSMC's 7 nm process, while the EPYC 9384X uses 5 nm. The Threadripper packs 16,600 million transistors across four 81 mm² dies; the EPYC has 90,160 million transistors across eight 72 mm² dies. The Threadripper is based on Zen 3 (Chagall PRO), the EPYC on Zen 4 (Genoa-X). This explains the EPYC's larger transistor count and smaller process, but also its lower base and boost clocks (3.10/3.90 GHz vs 3.60/4.50 GHz) and higher TDP (320 W vs 280 W).

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both have 64 KB L1 per core, but the Threadripper has 512 KB L2 per core while the EPYC has 1 MB per core. L3 is the big differentiator: the Threadripper has 128 MB total, while the EPYC has 768 MB shared. Memory support also diverges: the Threadripper uses DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth; the EPYC uses DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe generations differ as well: the Threadripper offers Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes. Sockets are incompatible: WRX8 for the Threadripper, SP5 for the EPYC. The Threadripper launched on 2022-03-07 with a launch MSRP of $3299; the EPYC launched on 2023-06-12 with a launch MSRP of $5529.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX wins single-thread tests by 8.1% in Cinebench R23 (9,038 vs 8,359) and by 10.2% in PassMark single-thread (3,323 vs 3,015).

Q: Why does the EPYC 9384X win the physics and prime number benchmarks?

A: The EPYC has 768 MB of shared L3 cache versus 128 MB on the Threadripper, and it uses DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 204.8 GB/s. These cache and memory advantages likely drive its 53.3% lead in PassMark physics and 26.5% lead in prime number finding.

Q: Which CPU supports faster memory?

A: The EPYC 9384X supports DDR5 with a twelve-channel bus and 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 5975WX supports DDR4 with an eight-channel bus and 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 98th percentile of all CPUs, according to the benchmark database.

Q: Which CPU has a higher TDP?

A: The EPYC 9384X has a TDP of 320 W, while the Threadripper PRO 5975WX has a TDP of 280 W.

Q: What is the PCIe generation difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 5975WX uses PCIe Gen 4 with 128 lanes, while the EPYC 9384X uses PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 5975WX is the clear winner for rendering and content creation. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all show an 8.1% lead in both multi-core and single-core, making it the better choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, and any software that scales across cores. Its PassMark wins in integer math (+20.9%), floating-point math (+15.9%), data compression (+15.5%), encryption (+10.8%), and extended instructions (+11.4%) make it strong for scientific computing, data processing, and general-purpose workstation tasks. It also leads in random string sorting (+3.4%) and multithread (+8.1%).

The EPYC 9384X wins only two tests, but they are decisive. PassMark physics at 9,332 vs 4,360 (a 53.3% advantage) and prime number finding at 596 vs 438 (a 26.5% advantage) indicate workloads that hammer the cache hierarchy. If your application is a physics engine, a prime-number search, or a similar cache-resident problem, the EPYC's 768 MB L3 and 460.8 GB/s memory bandwidth will outperform the Threadripper despite lower clock speeds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5975WX | AMD EPYC 9384X |

|----------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------|

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 280 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket WRX8 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Chagall PRO | Genoa-X |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 16,600 million | 90,160 million |

| Die Size | 4x 81 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 128 MB | 768 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| PCIe Version | Gen 4, 128 Lanes | Gen 5, 128 Lanes |

| Release Date | 2022-03-07 | 2023-06-12 |

| Launch MSRP | $3299 | $5529 |

| Part Number | 100-000000445 | null |