AMD EPYC 9454P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 9454P across all eight head-to-head comparisons. The most decisive margin comes in Geekbench multicore, where the EPYC 9454P scores 19941 against the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX's 16598, a 20.1% advantage. This is the single largest performance gap between the two processors and reflects a substantial difference in how the two chips handle heavily threaded workloads in that specific test.

The Cinebench results tell a more nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the EPYC 9454P posts 8214 versus 8182 for the Threadripper PRO, a narrow 0.4% lead. The same 0.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, with scores of 34226 and 34093 respectively. Cinebench R23 multicore follows the pattern: 81492 for the EPYC against 81175, again a 0.4% edge. Across all three Cinebench versions, the EPYC 9454P wins, but the margins are small enough that real-world rendering workloads would likely show negligible differences.

Single-core results follow a similar trajectory. The EPYC 9454P leads in Cinebench R15 single-core with 1159 versus 1155, a 0.3% margin. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 4831 against 4813, a 0.4% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core records 11504 versus 11460, also 0.4%. Geekbench single-core gives the EPYC a 3.3% lead, with scores of 2011 and 1947.

The overall picture is clear: the EPYC 9454P wins every recorded benchmark, but the magnitude varies significantly by test. In Cinebench workloads, the two processors are effectively matched, with the EPYC holding a consistent but tiny edge. In Geekbench multicore, the EPYC's advantage expands dramatically to 20.1%, suggesting that test exercises architectural differences that favor the newer Zen 4 design more heavily.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of AMD server and workstation silicon. The EPYC 9454P belongs to the EPYC 9004 series built on Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa, fabricated on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX comes from the 5000 series, using Zen 3 architecture with the codename Chagall PRO, manufactured on a 7 nm process, also at TSMC.

The process node difference is significant. The 5 nm node allows the EPYC 9454P to pack 52,560 million transistors across eight chiplets, each measuring 72 mm². The Threadripper PRO 5995WX uses 33,200 million transistors spread across eight 81 mm² dies. Despite having fewer total transistors, the Threadripper PRO actually features more cores: 64 cores and 128 threads versus 48 cores and 96 threads for the EPYC. The EPYC's denser 5 nm process enables higher performance per core and per transistor, which explains how it can beat a higher-core-count chip in every benchmark.

Cache layouts differ as well. Both processors share 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 MB of L3 cache. The L2 cache differs: the EPYC 9454P has 1 MB per core, while the Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 512 KB per core. This means the EPYC's 48 cores collectively have 48 MB of L2 cache, while the Threadripper PRO's 64 cores have 32 MB total. The larger per-core L2 on the EPYC likely contributes to its better single-threaded performance.

Memory architecture marks another major divergence. The EPYC 9454P supports DDR5 memory over a twelve-channel bus, delivering 460.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX uses DDR4 across an eight-channel bus, with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC offers more than double the memory bandwidth, a critical factor for large data sets and memory-intensive workloads. Both support ECC memory, and neither includes integrated graphics.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The EPYC 9454P provides PCIe Gen 5 with 128 lanes from the CPU. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX offers PCIe Gen 4 with the same 128 lanes. The newer PCIe standard on the EPYC doubles the per-lane bandwidth, which matters for high-throughput storage and accelerators.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the EPYC 9454P all eight wins, so the practical question is where the Threadripper PRO 5995WX still makes sense. The Cinebench results show that in CPU-bound rendering and compute workloads, the two chips are nearly identical. The Threadripper PRO's extra 16 cores and 32 threads do not translate into a Cinebench advantage, but they also do not result in a deficit beyond 0.4%. For users running Cinebench-style workloads, the choice between these two would come down to platform factors rather than raw performance.

The EPYC 9454P's 20.1% lead in Geekbench multicore signals that it handles mixed, real-world application workloads more effectively. Geekbench exercises a broader range of instructions and memory patterns than Cinebench, and the EPYC's DDR5 memory subsystem and larger L2 cache appear to provide a meaningful benefit. For general workstation tasks involving multiple applications, the EPYC pulls ahead clearly.

Single-threaded performance favors the EPYC across every test, with margins between 0.3% and 3.3%. The boost clock difference is notable: the EPYC 9454P boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the Threadripper PRO reaches 4.50 GHz. Despite the Threadripper's higher boost clock, the EPYC still wins single-core tests, indicating that Zen 4's architectural efficiency overcomes the clock deficit. The base clocks are nearly identical at 2.75 GHz for the EPYC and 2.70 GHz for the Threadripper.

The Threadripper PRO's advantage lies in its core count. With 64 cores versus 48, it offers more parallel throughput capacity in theory. But the recorded benchmarks show that this theoretical advantage fails to materialize in practice, as the EPYC's newer architecture and superior memory bandwidth compensate for the core deficit. In heavily parallel workloads that scale perfectly with core count, the Threadripper might perform better, but no such benchmark appears in the recorded data.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. Core and thread counts: the EPYC 9454P has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. Clock speeds: the EPYC runs at 2.75 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, while the Threadripper runs at 2.70 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. Thermal design power: the EPYC is rated at 290 W, the Threadripper at 280 W.

Sockets differ entirely: the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, the Threadripper uses AMD Socket WRX8. Process nodes: 5 nm for the EPYC versus 7 nm for the Threadripper. Transistor counts: 52,560 million versus 33,200 million. Die sizes: 8x 72 mm² versus 8x 81 mm². L2 cache: 1 MB per core for the EPYC, 512 KB per core for the Threadripper. L1 and L3 caches are identical at 64 KB per core and 256 MB respectively.

Memory support: DDR5 for the EPYC, DDR4 for the Threadripper. Memory buses: twelve-channel versus eight-channel. Memory bandwidth: 460.8 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s. PCIe generations: Gen 5 versus Gen 4, both with 128 lanes from the CPU. Release dates: the EPYC launched on 2022-11-09, the Threadripper on 2022-03-07. Launch MSRP: the EPYC 9454P carries a launch MSRP of $4598, the Threadripper PRO 5995WX carries a launch MSRP of $6499. Both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9454P has 48 cores and 96 threads.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core benchmarks?

A: The AMD EPYC 9454P wins every recorded single-core test, with margins ranging from 0.3% in Cinebench R15 to 3.3% in Geekbench single-core.

Q: How much faster is the EPYC 9454P in Geekbench multicore?

A: The EPYC 9454P scores 19941 versus 16598 for the Threadripper PRO 5995WX, a 20.1% advantage.

Q: What memory types do the two processors support?

A: The EPYC 9454P supports DDR5 over a twelve-channel bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 5995WX supports DDR4 over an eight-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the AMD EPYC 9454P and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9454P boosts to 3.80 GHz. Despite this, the EPYC wins all single-core benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9454P outperforms the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5995WX in every recorded benchmark. The EPYC wins all eight head-to-head comparisons, with the smallest margin at 0.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core and the largest at 20.1% in Geekbench multicore. Its average benchmark score of 20422 exceeds the Threadripper's 19928, and both processors sit at the 74th percentile among all CPUs.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering and compute workloads, the choice between these two is nearly immaterial from a performance standpoint. The 0.4% differences across all three Cinebench versions fall well within run-to-run variance. The Threadripper PRO's higher boost clock and additional cores do not yield any measurable advantage in these tests.

For users whose workloads resemble Geekbench's mixed application profile, the EPYC 9454P is the clear choice. Its 20.1% multicore lead and 3.3% single-core lead reflect the benefits of Zen 4 architecture, DDR5 memory, and double the memory bandwidth. The EPYC also offers PCIe Gen 5 connectivity, newer than the Threadripper's Gen 4, which matters for future expansion.

The Threadripper PRO 5995WX retains relevance only through its higher core count and lower TDP of 280 W versus 290 W. But the recorded data shows that those 64 cores do not translate into benchmark victories. The EPYC 9454P, despite having 16 fewer cores, wins every test through architectural efficiency, superior memory bandwidth, and newer process technology. Users who need maximum performance in the recorded benchmark categories should select the EPYC 9454P. Users who specifically need 64 physical cores for workload allocation purposes might still consider the Threadripper, but they should expect no performance advantage in these benchmarks.