AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X and AMD EPYC 9565 are both 99th-percentile Zen 5 parts, but they are built for different rooms in the building. The Threadripper 9980X dominates the benchmark suite with 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, often by double-digit margins, while the EPYC 9565 counters with two decisive victories in specialized workloads. For a desktop workstation user who wants maximum core performance and top-tier single-thread speed, the Threadripper 9980X is the clear choice. For a server administrator running physics simulations or prime-number-heavy workloads who needs massive memory bandwidth and more cores, the EPYC 9565 is the better fit. The data shows the Threadripper 9980X is the faster overall processor in most measurable tasks, but the EPYC 9565’s 72 cores, twelve-channel memory bus, and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a distinct edge in specific enterprise scenarios.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X if you are building a high-end desktop workstation and care about raw multi-threaded performance across Cinebench and PassMark suites. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including a 13.6% lead in all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23, both multi-core and single-core) and a 21.5% lead in PassMark integer math. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 64 cores deliver a 22.8% single-thread advantage over the EPYC 9565, which matters for responsiveness in everyday desktop tasks. The Threadripper 9980X also has an unlocked multiplier, making it the only overclockable option here, and it carries a launch MSRP of $4999.

Pick the AMD EPYC 9565 if your workload is dominated by physics calculations or prime-number finding. It wins PassMark physics with a score of 18036 versus 8001 (a 55.6% lead) and PassMark find prime numbers with 2422 versus 769 (a 68.2% lead). Its 72 cores, 144 threads, and 384 MB of shared L3 cache, combined with a twelve-channel memory bus and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, make it a server-class workhorse. However, it loses nearly every other benchmark, including a 13.6% deficit in Cinebench R23 multi-core (114937 vs 130529) and a 15.3% deficit in data compression. It is not overclockable, and its launch MSRP is $10486. The data suggests the EPYC 9565 is a specialized tool, not a general-purpose performer.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process with Zen 5 architecture, but they diverge in almost every other physical detail. The Threadripper 9980X uses the Shimada Peak codename and fits into AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC 9565 is Turin on AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper packs 64 cores and 128 threads, whereas the EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads. Transistor counts differ substantially: the Threadripper has 66,520 million transistors across an 8x 70.6 mm² die setup, while the EPYC 9565 has 99,780 million transistors across a 12x 70.6 mm² configuration. This explains the EPYC’s higher 400 W TDP versus the Threadripper’s 350 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies are also different. The Threadripper 9980X has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. The EPYC 9565 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 384 MB of shared L3. Memory support is a major split: both use DDR5 and ECC, but the Threadripper runs quad-channel with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC runs twelve-channel with 576.0 GB/s. PCIe lanes also favor the EPYC: 128 Gen 5 lanes versus 80 on the Threadripper. The Threadripper has a higher boost clock (5.40 GHz vs 4.30 GHz) and a slightly higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs 3.15 GHz). Neither has integrated graphics, and both are listed as Active production parts. The Threadripper is a Desktop market segment part; the EPYC is Server/Workstation.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper 9980X wins in almost every general-purpose and content-creation metric. It leads by 13.6% across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core. In PassMark, it wins data compression by 15.3% (2974534 vs 2579631), data encryption by 10.7% (157137 vs 141936), extended instructions by 9.2% (228959 vs 209595), floating point math by 1.7% (559003 vs 549422), integer math by 21.5% (872071 vs 717948), multithread by 4.7% (141641 vs 135221), single-thread by 22.8% (4537 vs 3696), and random string sorting by a negligible 0% margin (292083 vs 291941). The single-thread and integer math wins are particularly notable, showing the Threadripper’s higher clock speeds translate into real-world responsiveness.

The EPYC 9565 wins exactly two benchmarks, but it wins them big. PassMark physics shows a 55.6% lead (18036 vs 8001), and PassMark find prime numbers shows a 68.2% lead (2422 vs 769). These are not marginal victories; they are dominant. The physics result likely benefits from the EPYC’s 72-core count and twelve-channel memory bandwidth, while the prime-number test may exploit its larger L3 cache. If your workflow involves rigid-body physics, molecular dynamics, or cryptographic prime generation, the EPYC 9565 is the only choice from this pair.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: Does the Threadripper 9980X beat the EPYC 9565 in single-threaded performance?

A: Yes. The Threadripper 9980X scores 4537 in PassMark single-thread versus 3696 for the EPYC 9565, a 22.8% lead. It also wins Cinebench R23 single-core by 13.6% (18427 vs 16226).

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9565 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper 9980X has a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both CPUs overclockable?

A: No. The Threadripper 9980X has an unlocked multiplier and is overclockable. The EPYC 9565 does not have an unlocked multiplier.

Q: Which CPU wins in PassMark physics?

A: The EPYC 9565 wins decisively with a score of 18036 versus 8001 for the Threadripper 9980X, a 55.6% lead.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9565 has 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper 9980X has 256 MB of L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided results come from Cinebench, where the Threadripper 9980X posts a consistent 13.6% advantage across all six tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 130529 against 114937 for the EPYC 9565. The single-core gap is similar: 18427 versus 16226. This consistency suggests a fundamental clock-speed advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

PassMark integer math is another major win for the Threadripper, with a 21.5% lead (872071 vs 717948). Data compression shows a 15.3% margin (2974534 vs 2579631), and data encryption a 10.7% margin (157137 vs 141936). Single-thread performance is the biggest PassMark win for the Threadripper at 22.8% (4537 vs 3696). Even where the EPYC 9565 has more cores, the Threadripper wins multithread by 4.7% (141641 vs 135221), indicating that its higher clocks offset the core deficit.

The EPYC 9565’s wins are dramatic reversals. In PassMark physics, it scores 18036, more than double the Threadripper’s 8001 — a 55.6% lead. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 2422 versus 769, a 68.2% lead. These are the only two benchmarks where the EPYC 9565 comes out ahead, but they are substantial enough to justify its existence as a server part. The closest race is PassMark random string sorting, where the Threadripper wins by a single point (292083 vs 291941), effectively a tie. Floating point math is also close, with the Threadripper ahead by just 1.7% (559003 vs 549422).

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only where the two processors differ, based on the FACT PACK data.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X | AMD EPYC 9565 |

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

| Series | 9000 series | EPYC 9005 series |

| Cores | 64 | 72 |

| Threads | 128 | 144 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.15 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.40 GHz | 4.30 GHz |

| TDP | 350 W | 400 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket sTR5 | AMD Socket SP5 |

| Codename | Shimada Peak | Turin |

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

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

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

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

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

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Twelve-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 576.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2025-07-29 | 2024-10-09 |

| Launch MSRP | $4999 | $10486 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | 100-000001593 | 100-000001447 |

Both processors share the same 4 nm TSMC process, Zen 5 architecture, DDR5 memory support, ECC memory capability, and lack of integrated graphics. The EPYC 9565 is larger in almost every physical metric — more cores, more transistors, more cache, more memory channels, more PCIe lanes — but the Threadripper 9980X compensates with significantly higher clocks and a lower TDP. The average benchmark score reflects this: the Threadripper 9980X averages 321753, while the EPYC 9565 averages 285471. The Threadripper 9980X’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX (0.3% ahead), while the EPYC 9565 trades blows with the Intel Xeon 696X (-0.2%) and AMD EPYC 9555P (-0.6%).