AMD EPYC 9475F vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two processors along predictable lines, but the margin of victory matters more than the raw win count. The AMD EPYC 9475F takes only 2 of the 11 head-to-head benchmarks, yet those two wins are decisive in specific workloads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX dominates the remaining 9 benchmarks, often by substantial double-digit margins.

The EPYC 9475F wins in `passmark_find_prime_numbers` with a score of 1507 against the Threadripper's 1138, a 32.4% advantage. This is the single largest relative win for either CPU. It also wins `passmark_physics` at 16443 versus 13783, a 19.3% lead. These two tests suggest the EPYC's architecture and clock behavior favor integer-heavy, latency-sensitive workloads where raw core count matters less than per-core efficiency.

The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins everything else, and it wins big. In `passmark_integer_math`, it scores 872710 versus 605696, a 30.6% gap. `passmark_floating_point_math` shows 553348 versus 406524, a 26.5% lead. Data compression, encryption, extended instructions, random string sorting, multithread, and single-thread all go to the Threadripper with deltas ranging from 15.7% to 26%. The smallest Threadripper win is in `passmark_multithread` at 150071 versus 122476, still an 18.4% margin.

For practical use, the split is clear: the EPYC 9475F is the specialist for prime-number computation and physics simulation workloads, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the general-purpose throughput champion. If your workflow involves cryptography, compression, or broad multithreaded rendering, the Threadripper's wins are too large to ignore. If you need maximum performance in the two niche tests where the EPYC leads, the 32.4% and 19.3% margins justify the choice.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs share the same fundamental building blocks: Zen 5 architecture, 4 nm process from TSMC, 66,520 million transistors, and an 8x 70.6 mm² die configuration. The codenames differ—Turin for the EPYC 9475F, Shimada Peak for the Threadripper PRO 9985WX—but the underlying silicon is the same generation.

The core counts diverge significantly. The EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX packs 64 cores and 128 threads. This 16-core, 32-thread advantage explains much of the Threadripper's throughput dominance. Clock speeds also favor the Threadripper: its boost clock hits 5.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 4.80 GHz, and its base clock is 3.20 GHz versus 3.65 GHz. The EPYC actually has a higher base clock, but the Threadripper's higher boost ceiling matters more in burst workloads.

Cache layouts show a subtle difference. Both have 256 MB of shared L3 cache, but the per-core L1 differs: 80 KB per core on the EPYC versus 64 KB per core on the Threadripper. L2 is identical at 1 MB per core. The EPYC's larger L1 might contribute to its wins in the prime-number and physics tests, where per-core cache locality is critical.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The EPYC 9475F uses twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC's 40.6% higher memory bandwidth is a significant architectural advantage, even if the benchmarks don't consistently reflect it. Both support ECC memory, and both use Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only).

Socket and platform differences matter for system builders. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC has a 400 W TDP, the Threadripper 350 W. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable; the EPYC is locked. The EPYC launched on 2024-10-09 at a launch MSRP of $7592, while the Threadripper launched later on 2025-07-22 at a launch MSRP of $7999.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single benchmark gap is in `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, where the EPYC 9475F scores 1507 against the Threadripper's 1138. That 32.4% delta is the EPYC's best showing and represents the clearest argument for choosing it over the Threadripper. The physics test also goes to the EPYC at 16443 versus 13783, a 19.3% lead that reinforces the pattern of EPYC strength in latency-bound integer work.

Every other head-to-head benchmark favors the Threadripper PRO 9985WX, and the margins are consistently large. `passmark_integer_math` shows the biggest absolute difference: 872710 versus 605696, a 30.6% advantage. `passmark_floating_point_math` follows at 553348 versus 406524, a 26.5% gap. Data compression scores 2912972 versus 2156305, a 26% lead. Extended instructions show 225340 versus 173169, a 23.2% margin. Random string sorting is 329014 versus 253936, a 22.8% gap.

The Threadripper's advantage narrows in some tests but remains substantial. Encryption scores 154824 versus 116648, a 24.7% lead. Multithread performance is 150071 versus 122476, an 18.4% margin. Single-thread performance shows 4482 versus 3779, a 15.7% gap that reflects the Threadripper's higher boost clock.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the EPYC 9475F posts an average of 350933 across its benchmark suite, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX averages 320749. Despite losing most head-to-head matchups, the EPYC's higher average comes from the benchmarks where it wins big—its 32.4% prime-number victory and 19.3% physics win pull the average up. The Threadripper's losses are smaller in percentage terms, but its wins are more numerous.

The nearest rivals data provides context. The EPYC 9475F sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, with its closest rival being the AMD EPYC 9754 at an average score of 364371, which is 3.7% higher. The Intel Xeon 6960P is 3.9% higher, the AMD EPYC 9655 is 6% higher, and the AMD EPYC 9535 is 7.5% higher. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX sits at the 99th percentile, with the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X at an average of 321753, just 0.3% higher. The Intel Xeon 6781P is 1.7% lower, the AMD EPYC 9575F is 2.9% lower, and the AMD EPYC 9734 is 3.3% lower.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9475F has 48 cores and 96 threads. The Threadripper's 16-core and 32-thread advantage is the primary driver of its throughput wins in most benchmarks.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9475F win the prime number test by such a large margin?

A: The EPYC 9475F scores 1507 in `passmark_find_prime_numbers` versus the Threadripper's 1138, a 32.4% advantage. This likely stems from its higher base clock of 3.65 GHz (versus 3.20 GHz) and its larger 80 KB per-core L1 cache, which improves per-core performance in latency-sensitive integer workloads.

Q: How much faster is the Threadripper in single-thread performance?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9985WX scores 4482 in `passmark_single_thread` versus the EPYC's 3779, a 15.7% advantage. This aligns with its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to the EPYC's 4.80 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The EPYC 9475F uses twelve-channel DDR5 memory providing 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses eight-channel DDR5 providing 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC's 166.4 GB/s advantage is significant for memory-bound server workloads.

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The EPYC 9475F has an average benchmark score of 350933, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX averages 320749. The EPYC's higher average is driven by its large wins in the prime number and physics tests, even though it loses most individual benchmarks.

Q: Are both CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 9475F and Threadripper PRO 9985WX use TSMC's 4 nm process, with 66,520 million transistors and an 8x 70.6 mm² die configuration. They also share the same Zen 5 architecture.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for most buyers. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins 9 of 11 benchmarks, including all the major throughput tests. Its 30.6% lead in integer math, 26.5% lead in floating-point math, and 26% lead in data compression make it the default choice for any workload that scales with core count and clock speed. The 15.7% single-thread advantage seals the deal for mixed-use systems where both single-threaded and multithreaded performance matter.

The AMD EPYC 9475F is the specialist's choice. Its 32.4% win in prime-number computation and 19.3% win in physics simulation indicate that certain latency-sensitive, per-core-bound workloads respond better to its architecture. The EPYC also offers 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus the Threadripper's 409.6 GB/s, which could matter for memory-hungry applications even if the benchmark suite doesn't fully capture that advantage. Its 100th percentile ranking versus the Threadripper's 99th percentile reflects a higher average benchmark score.

For server deployments where twelve-channel memory, SP5 socket compatibility, and the higher memory bandwidth are critical, the EPYC 9475F is the right pick. Its 400 W TDP is higher than the Threadripper's 350 W, but that's the cost of the memory subsystem. The EPYC is also locked, so no overclocking headroom exists.

For workstation builders who want maximum performance across the broadest range of workloads, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the clear winner. Its 64 cores, 128 threads, 5.40 GHz boost clock, and unlocked multiplier make it more flexible. The 350 W TDP is lower, and the sTR5 platform supports overclocking. The launch MSRP is $7999, slightly higher than the EPYC's $7592, but the performance advantage in 9 of 11 benchmarks justifies the premium for most users.

The verdict is not close in general-purpose terms. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the better all-around processor. The EPYC 9475F wins only where its specific architectural traits—higher base clock, larger L1 cache, and massive memory bandwidth—directly address the workload. Unless your application is dominated by prime-number computation or physics simulation, the Threadripper's wins are too numerous and too large to ignore.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9475F | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX |

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

| Cores | 48 | 64 |

| Threads | 96 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 3.65 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.80 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 256 MB (shared) | 256 MB |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $7592 | $7999 |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-07-22 |

| Part Number | 100-000001143 | 100-000000722 |