AMD EPYC 9384X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX leads decisively. In PassMark single-thread testing it scores 4551 against 3015 for the EPYC 9384X, a 50.9% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the same pattern: 11431 versus 8359, a 36.8% gap.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-threaded rendering?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9965WX wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 80976 versus 59215 for the EPYC 9384X, a 36.7% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 34009 versus 24870, also a 36.7% gap.

Q: Does the EPYC 9384X win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, two. The EPYC 9384X leads in PassMark data encryption with 72631 versus 66155, an 8.9% advantage. It also wins PassMark physics with 9332 versus 7529, a 19.3% lead.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each processor?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 24 cores and 48 threads. The EPYC 9384X has 32 cores and 64 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor have?

A: The EPYC 9384X has 768 MB of shared L3 cache, a massive amount enabled by its Genoa-X design. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX has 128 MB of L3 cache. Both have 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these CPUs?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX has a launch MSRP of $2899. The AMD EPYC 9384X has a launch MSRP of $5529.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD's server and workstation silicon. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. The EPYC 9384X uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa-X, on a 5 nm process. This node difference contributes to the Threadripper's higher clock speeds and efficiency characteristics.

Transistor counts differ substantially. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX integrates 33,260 million transistors across a 4x 70.6 mm² die configuration. The EPYC 9384X packs 90,160 million transistors across an 8x 72 mm² die layout. The EPYC's larger die count reflects its 32-core design and extensive 3D V-Cache implementation.

Cache architecture is a defining difference. The EPYC 9384X features 768 MB of shared L3 cache, six times the 128 MB found on the Threadripper PRO 9965WX. This massive cache pool is the signature feature of the Genoa-X line, designed to accelerate data-intensive server workloads. Both processors share identical L1 and L2 cache sizes per core at 64 KB and 1 MB respectively.

Clock speeds favor the Threadripper PRO 9965WX significantly. Its base clock runs at 4.20 GHz with a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The EPYC 9384X operates at 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. These are 1.10 GHz and 1.50 GHz gaps respectively, explaining much of the Threadripper's single-thread dominance.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC 9384X uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC thus provides 51.2 GB/s more memory bandwidth, which is relevant for its cache-heavy design.

Both CPUs support PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) and ECC memory. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9384X is locked. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper's market segment is Server/Workstation, as is the EPYC's, but the Threadripper carries an unlocked multiplier suggesting overclocking headroom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a lopsided contest. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX wins 15 of 17 comparisons, with the EPYC 9384X claiming only two victories.

Starting with Cinebench results, the Threadripper dominates every rendering test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 8162 versus 5968, a 36.8% lead. Single-core R15 shows 1152 versus 842, again 36.8%. The consistency of this percentage across R15, R20, and R23 is notable: multi-core deltas are 36.8%, 36.7%, and 36.7%, while single-core deltas are 36.8%, 36.8%, and 36.8%. This uniformity indicates the clock speed advantage scales evenly across all Cinebench versions.

PassMark results show a wider spread of outcomes. The largest Threadripper victory is in single-thread performance at 4551 versus 3015, a 50.9% margin. Extended instructions show the next biggest gap: 108753 versus 74363, a 46.2% advantage. Floating-point math favors the Threadripper by 31.5% (229685 versus 174630), while multithread performance shows a 32.9% lead (92604 versus 69665).

More moderate wins for the Threadripper appear in prime number finding at 26.2% (752 versus 596), random string sorting at 25.3% (149617 versus 119440), and data compression at 20.1% (1345230 versus 1119983). Integer math shows a 17.2% advantage (349195 versus 297833).

The EPYC 9384X wins in two specific PassMark categories. Data encryption shows the EPYC at 72631 versus 66155, an 8.9% edge. Physics testing gives the EPYC a 19.3% lead with 9332 versus 7529. These wins suggest the EPYC's large cache and higher core count benefit certain specialized workloads, particularly those involving cryptographic operations and physics simulation.

The average benchmark score reflects the overall hierarchy. The Threadripper PRO 9965WX averages 147009, placing it in the 98th percentile of all CPUs. The EPYC 9384X averages 120427, in the 97th percentile. This 26,582-point gap in average scores represents a roughly 22% difference in overall measured performance.

The Verdict

The data points to the Threadripper PRO 9965WX as the stronger all-around performer. Its 24 cores operating at significantly higher clocks overcome the EPYC's 8-core advantage in almost every workload. The 36.7% to 36.8% Cinebench leads are substantial and consistent, suggesting a fundamental performance ceiling difference between the two architectures.

Workloads that depend on single-thread speed or lightly threaded execution will strongly favor the Threadripper. The 50.9% PassMark single-thread advantage is the largest margin recorded in this comparison. For rendering, video encoding, and general compute tasks, the Threadripper's higher clock speeds and Zen 5 architecture deliver clear wins.

The EPYC 9384X is not without merit. Its 768 MB L3 cache and twelve-channel memory interface make it suited to specific server workloads. The data encryption win and physics win indicate that cache-sensitive, highly parallel operations can extract more performance from the EPYC's design. Its 32 cores and 64 threads provide more parallelism for workloads that scale perfectly with core count.

The launch MSRP of $2899 for the Threadripper PRO 9965WX versus $5529 for the EPYC 9384X places the Threadripper as the lower-priced option while also being the faster processor in most tests. The EPYC's higher price reflects its server positioning, twelve-channel memory, and massive cache pool rather than raw benchmark superiority.

For most workstation users, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX is the data-supported choice. Its wins span rendering, math, compression, sorting, and single-thread applications. The EPYC 9384X should be selected specifically for workloads proven to benefit from its cache capacity and memory bandwidth, such as the encryption and physics tasks where it leads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9965WX | AMD EPYC 9384X |

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

| Series | 9000 series | EPYC 9004 series |

| Cores | 24 | 32 |

| Threads | 48 | 64 |

| Base Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 320 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 5 | Zen 4 |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Genoa-X |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 5 nm |

| Transistors | 33,260 million | 90,160 million |

| Die Size | 4x 70.6 mm² | 8x 72 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 460.8 GB/s |

| Multiplier | Unlocked | Locked |

| Launch MSRP | $2899 | $5529 |

| Release Date | 2025-07-22 | 2023-06-12 |

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9965WX wins in every Cinebench rendering test, all three versions and both single-core and multi-core variants. Its PassMark victories include single-thread, multithread, floating-point math, integer math, extended instructions, data compression, prime number finding, and random string sorting. This is a broad profile covering rendering, general computation, compression, and instruction-heavy workloads. The 50.9% single-thread win makes it the clear choice for applications that are not fully parallelized.

The EPYC 9384X wins specifically in data encryption and physics simulation. These are workloads that can leverage its 768 MB L3 cache and 32 cores. The 19.3% physics win is its largest margin, while the 8.9% encryption advantage is more modest. The EPYC also offers higher memory bandwidth at 460.8 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s, which may benefit memory-bound server applications beyond the benchmark suite.

The Threadripper's wins are larger in magnitude. Its margins range from 17.2% to 50.9%, while the EPYC's wins are 8.9% and 19.3%. In terms of benchmark count and margin size, the Threadripper PRO 9965WX dominates this comparison. The EPYC 9384X remains relevant for specialized server deployments where its cache hierarchy and twelve-channel memory provide tangible benefits, but the recorded data shows the Threadripper as the superior processor for the majority of tested workloads.