AMD EPYC 9535 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and AMD EPYC 9535 are both Zen 5 behemoths, but they are tuned for different corners of the high-performance computing world. The data shows a complete sweep for the Threadripper in the head-to-head benchmark suite, yet the EPYC counters with superior memory bandwidth and a lower launch MSRP. This comparison pits a 96-core workstation flagship against a 64-core server workhorse, and the benchmark results reveal exactly where each chip's architectural choices pay off.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins all 11 benchmark comparisons, with no wins for the EPYC 9535. The margins, however, vary dramatically by workload type, offering insight into where each chip's strengths lie.

The largest single victory comes in PassMark's physics test, where the Threadripper scores 16,860 against the EPYC's 3,834 — a staggering 339.7% delta. This is a core-count-driven blowout, as the Threadripper's 96 cores and 192 threads simply overwhelm the EPYC's 64 cores and 128 threads in a test that scales aggressively with parallel throughput.

Across the other PassMark sub-tests, the Threadripper's advantage remains substantial but more consistent. In integer math, it posts 1,203,634 versus 730,281, a 64.8% lead. Floating-point math shows a 58.6% gap (725,066 vs 457,047), while random string sorting lands at 69.3% (418,973 vs 247,506). Data compression comes in at 61.3% (3,723,652 vs 2,308,822), and data encryption at 62.3% (206,662 vs 127,372). Extended instruction workloads show a 54% delta (270,647 vs 175,784), and the find prime numbers test rounds out the heavy lifting with a 68.9% edge (1,476 vs 874).

The multithread benchmark, which aggregates overall parallel performance, shows a 49.5% lead for the Threadripper (171,200 vs 114,528). Notably, the single-thread test is the closest contest, with the Threadripper scoring 4,542 versus the EPYC's 3,720 — a 22.1% advantage. This narrower gap indicates that while the Threadripper's 5.40 GHz boost clock helps, both chips benefit from the same Zen 5 architecture's strong single-core efficiency.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture: the Threadripper PRO 9995WX averages 412,068, which is 8.6% ahead of the EPYC 9535's 379,408. Interestingly, the EPYC's nearest rival list shows it trailing the Threadripper by that same margin, while the Threadripper's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 9745 at -3.3% and the EPYC 9655P at +3.6%, placing it near the top of a very elite tier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the AMD EPYC 9535 has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: What is the peak clock speed difference?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX boosts to 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 9535 boosts to 4.30 GHz. The base clocks are closer, at 2.50 GHz and 2.40 GHz respectively.

Q: How much L3 cache does each processor offer?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX has 384 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 9535 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD EPYC 9535 offers higher memory bandwidth at 576.0 GB/s, compared to the Threadripper PRO 9995WX's 409.6 GB/s. This is due to the EPYC's twelve-channel memory bus versus the Threadripper's eight-channel configuration.

Q: Are both CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9535 does not.

Q: When was each processor released?

A: The EPYC 9535 was released on 2024-10-09, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX was released later, on 2025-07-22.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on TSMC's 4nm process node and share the Zen 5 architecture, but they diverge significantly in their physical design and intended platform. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX uses the codename "Shimada Peak" and fits into AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC 9535 uses the codename "Turin" and fits into AMD Socket SP5.

The transistor counts tell a story of scale. The Threadripper packs 99,780 million transistors across 12 chiplets, each measuring 70.6 mm². The EPYC, by contrast, has 66,520 million transistors across 8 chiplets of the same 70.6 mm² die size. This extra silicon on the Threadripper directly enables its higher core count and larger cache pool.

Cache hierarchies differ beyond just total L3 capacity. The Threadripper has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, while the EPYC has 80 KB per core. Both share 1 MB of L2 per core, but the L3 arrangement is distinct: the Threadripper offers 384 MB in total, while the EPYC provides 256 MB shared. This suggests the Threadripper's cache is organized to feed more cores, while the EPYC's shared design may be optimized for server workloads with more predictable access patterns.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The EPYC 9535 supports twelve-channel memory, delivering 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX uses eight-channel memory, capping at 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper is unlocked for overclocking, a feature absent from the EPYC, reflecting their different market positions.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX | AMD EPYC 9535 |

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

| Cores | 96 | 64 |

| Threads | 192 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 300 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Turin |

| Generation | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5) | EPYC (Zen 5) |

| Transistors | 99,780 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 12x 70.6 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

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

| L3 Cache | 384 MB | 256 MB (shared) |

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

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

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

| Launch MSRP | $11700 | $8992 |

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is clear: the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins every single head-to-head test, making it the outright performance leader in this comparison. Its 96 cores and 5.40 GHz boost clock deliver a 49.5% advantage in multithread workloads and a 22.1% edge in single-thread performance. For users running heavily parallel tasks like physics simulations, 3D rendering, or data compression, the Threadripper's 339.7% physics lead and 64.8% integer math advantage make it the obvious choice. Its unlocked multiplier also appeals to enthusiasts who want to push beyond stock clocks, and its higher L3 cache (384 MB vs 256 MB) benefits workloads with large working sets.

The EPYC 9535, despite losing every benchmark, claims victory in the platform-level battle. Its twelve-channel memory bus delivers 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth—40% more than the Threadripper's 409.6 GB/s—which is critical for memory-bound server workloads like large-scale database operations or high-throughput virtualization. The EPYC also comes in at a lower launch MSRP of $8992 versus the Threadripper's $11700, making it a more economical foundation for multi-socket server deployments. Its TDP of 300 W is also lower than the Threadripper's 350 W, which can translate to reduced cooling requirements in dense rack environments. The EPYC's shared 256 MB L3 cache and per-core L1 of 80 KB suggest a design tuned for consistent, predictable throughput across many virtual machines rather than peak single-thread burst performance.

In summary, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the benchmark king for raw compute, while the EPYC 9535 wins on memory bandwidth, price, and power efficiency for server infrastructure. The data shows no contest in performance, but the EPYC's platform advantages make it a compelling alternative for specific data-center roles.