AMD EPYC 9455P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9455P and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3995WX represent two distinct generations of AMD's high-core-count strategy. The EPYC 9455P, built on Zen 5, is a 48-core server processor, while the Threadripper PRO 3995WX, based on Zen 2, offers 64 cores for professional desktops. The benchmark data reveals a decisive generational shift, with the newer EPYC securing 16 out of 17 head-to-head victories, often by significant margins.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in the Cinebench suite, where the EPYC 9455P dominates across all versions. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 99,206 against the Threadripper's 71,338, a 39.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20 (41,666 vs 29,961, +39.1%) and R15 (9,999 vs 7,190, +39.1%). The consistency of this ~39% delta across multi-core tests suggests a fundamental architectural efficiency gain rather than a clock-speed fluke.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, with the EPYC leading by 39.2% in Cinebench R15 (1,411 vs 1,014) and 39.1% in R23 (14,005 vs 10,071). This is notable because the Threadripper actually has more physical cores (64 vs 48), yet the EPYC's newer Zen 5 architecture delivers far superior per-thread throughput. The PassMark single-thread test confirms this, showing the EPYC at 3,745 versus 2,595, a 44.3% lead.

The largest single delta comes in PassMark physics, where the EPYC scores 17,315 against the Threadripper's 5,498, a staggering 214.9% advantage. This test appears highly sensitive to the architectural improvements, likely reflecting better instruction scheduling and memory latency handling. Similarly, the find prime numbers test shows a 95.6% lead for the EPYC (1,107 vs 566), indicating a major uplift in integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads.

Not every result favors the newer chip. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins PassMark data encryption, scoring 124,433 against the EPYC's 115,403, a 7.3% advantage. This suggests the older Zen 2 design retains a niche strength in specific cryptographic operations, possibly due to a different instruction mix or memory access pattern. However, this is the only loss for the EPYC across the entire benchmark set.

Other notable EPYC wins include data compression (1,928,897 vs 1,841,292, +4.8%), extended instructions (137,485 vs 106,423, +29.2%), floating-point math (357,783 vs 277,715, +28.8%), and integer math (606,239 vs 490,116, +23.7%). The multithread PassMark score also favors the EPYC at 116,927 versus 83,928, a 39.3% margin, reinforcing the multi-core narrative.

FAQ

Q: Does the Threadripper's higher core count compensate for its older architecture?

A: No. Despite having 64 cores versus the EPYC's 48, the Threadripper loses every multi-core benchmark except data encryption. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC's 99,206 score beats the Threadripper's 71,338 by 39.1%, showing that Zen 5's per-core efficiency far outweighs the two extra core clusters.

Q: Which CPU is better for single-threaded workloads?

A: The EPYC 9455P is clearly superior. It leads by 39.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (1,411 vs 1,014), 39.1% in R23 (14,005 vs 10,071), and 44.3% in PassMark single-thread (3,745 vs 2,595). The Zen 5 architecture delivers a massive jump in per-core performance.

Q: Is there any workload where the Threadripper PRO 3995WX wins?

A: Yes, specifically data encryption. The Threadripper scores 124,433 versus the EPYC's 115,403, a 7.3% advantage. This is the only test out of 17 where the older CPU comes out ahead, suggesting a unique strength in certain cryptographic operations.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 9455P sits in the 99th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 217,854. It is 3.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon w9-3595X, 11.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6741P, and 12.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9335, but 8.6% behind the Intel Xeon 6747P. The Threadripper, at the 98th percentile, averages 171,748, which is 2.4% ahead of the AMD EPYC 7C13 but 4.5% behind the AMD EPYC 7763.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9455P has an average benchmark score of 217,854, while the Threadripper PRO 3995WX averages 171,748. This represents a roughly 27% overall performance advantage for the EPYC across all recorded tests.

Q: Does the Threadripper's older process node affect its performance?

A: The data suggests yes. The Threadripper uses a 7 nm process and Zen 2 architecture, while the EPYC uses 4 nm and Zen 5. The EPYC wins 16 of 17 tests, with the largest margins in physics (214.9%) and prime numbers (95.6%), which are likely tied to architectural and process improvements.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9455P is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Turin, and manufactured on a 4 nm process by TSMC. It packs 66,520 million transistors across eight chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². In contrast, the Threadripper PRO 3995WX uses the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Castle Peak, on a 7 nm process, with 30,400 million transistors spread across eight 74 mm² chiplets. The transistor density difference is enormous: the EPYC fits more than twice the transistors into a smaller aggregate die area.

Cache hierarchies also differ significantly. The EPYC provides 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 256 MB L3 cache. The Threadripper offers only 64 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but also has a shared 256 MB L3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the EPYC likely contribute to its superior single-threaded performance, as more data can be held closer to the execution units.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC supports DDR5 memory across a twelve-channel bus, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper uses DDR4 on an eight-channel bus, with 204.8 GB/s. This 2.8x bandwidth gap explains some of the massive deltas in memory-sensitive tests like physics and prime number finding. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's newer memory standard provides a clear throughput advantage.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The EPYC offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only), while the Threadripper has Gen 4 with 128 lanes. This means the EPYC can move data at twice the per-lane rate for expansion cards and NVMe storage, which is critical for server and workstation I/O. The Threadripper's socket is WRX8, while the EPYC uses SP5, indicating different platform ecosystems.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs diverge on nearly every core specification. The EPYC has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Threadripper has 64 cores and 128 threads. Despite the Threadripper's higher core count, the EPYC's base clock is 3.15 GHz versus 2.70 GHz, and its boost clock is 4.40 GHz versus 4.20 GHz. This clock advantage, combined with the newer architecture, explains the EPYC's dominance.

Thermal design power differs slightly: the EPYC is rated at 300 W, while the Threadripper is 280 W. Given the EPYC's higher performance, this 20 W difference appears well justified. The EPYC was released on 2024-10-09, while the Threadripper launched on 2020-07-13, a gap of over four years. Both are listed as Active in production, but they target different segments: the EPYC is for Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper is classified as Desktop.

Memory support is a key differentiator. The EPYC uses DDR5 with twelve-channel memory, while the Threadripper uses DDR4 with eight channels. The EPYC's memory bandwidth is 576.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s for the Threadripper. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC's platform offers substantially more bandwidth. The EPYC also has Gen 5 PCIe (128 lanes), while the Threadripper has Gen 4 (128 lanes).

The launch MSRP for the EPYC 9455P is $4819, while the Threadripper PRO 3995WX launched at $5489. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC's part number is 100-000001563, while the Threadripper's is 100-000000087100-100000087WOF. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, and the Threadripper also has no integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD EPYC 9455P is the superior processor across nearly every measurable metric. It wins 16 of 17 benchmarks, with an average score of 217,854 versus the Threadripper's 171,748. The EPYC offers a 39.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, a 44.3% lead in single-thread PassMark, and a 214.9% lead in physics. Its only loss is in data encryption, where the Threadripper leads by 7.3%.

For anyone building a new high-core-count system, the EPYC 9455P is the clear choice based on performance. The Zen 5 architecture, 4 nm process, DDR5 memory, and higher clocks deliver a generational leap that the older Threadripper cannot match. The Threadripper's only advantage is its 64-core count, but that does not translate into real-world wins.

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX remains a capable processor for its era, sitting at the 98th percentile of all CPUs. However, it is now outclassed by the EPYC, which sits at the 99th percentile. The EPYC also compares favorably to its nearest rivals, being 3.8% ahead of the Intel Xeon w9-3595X and 12.2% ahead of the AMD EPYC 9335, though it trails the Intel Xeon 6747P by 8.6%.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9455P wins in all compute-heavy scenarios. Its 39.1% lead across every Cinebench version means it excels in rendering, 3D modeling, and video encoding. The 95.6% lead in prime number finding and 214.9% lead in physics suggests it is ideal for scientific simulations, financial modeling, and any workload sensitive to integer math and memory latency. The 29.2% lead in extended instructions and 28.8% in floating-point math further cement its position for AI inference and complex calculations.

The Threadripper PRO 3995WX has one specific niche: data encryption. Its 7.3% win in PassMark data encryption indicates a possible advantage in cryptographic workloads, such as secure communication, VPN termination, or blockchain operations. This could be due to a different AES instruction implementation or memory access pattern. However, this is a narrow victory and does not offset the EPYC's broader dominance.

For multi-threaded throughput, the EPYC wins by 39.3% in PassMark multithread, meaning it will handle concurrent virtual machines, compilation jobs, or database workloads far better. The Threadripper's 64 cores do not help it here, as the EPYC's faster clocks and superior architecture more than compensate. The EPYC also wins data compression by 4.8%, making it better for archive operations and storage-heavy tasks.

In summary, the EPYC 9455P is the winner for any general-purpose high-performance workload, especially those involving modern data centers or heavy workstation tasks. The Threadripper PRO 3995WX is only preferable in the rare case where its data encryption advantage is the primary requirement. The benchmark data leaves little room for debate: the EPYC is the faster processor in almost every scenario.