AMD EPYC 9565 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX and AMD EPYC 9565 are both 4 nm Zen 5 behemoths, but they are tuned for different corners of the data center and workstation market. The data shows a clear split: the Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, while the EPYC 9565 takes two specific wins. The verdict hinges on workload shape. For single-threaded responsiveness, higher boost clocks, and most multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the definitive choice, delivering a consistent 15.6% advantage across all Cinebench tests. However, the EPYC 9565 is the pick for massive memory bandwidth and specific integer-heavy server workloads, as its 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and 72-core count drive wins in prime number finding and physics simulations. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the faster all-rounder for workstations; the EPYC 9565 is the specialized server part for scale-out memory and core-count-specific tasks.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX if your priority is raw clock speed and broad benchmark dominance. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock versus the EPYC's 4.30 GHz translates directly into a 21.3% lead in single-threaded Passmark scores and a 15.6% lead in every Cinebench iteration, from R15 to R23. With 15 wins out of 17 head-to-head tests, it is the superior processor for most workstation applications, including data compression (12.9% faster), integer math (21.6% faster), and random string sorting (12.7% faster). Its 99th percentile ranking among all CPUs, alongside an average benchmark score of 320,749, places it slightly ahead of its nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X, by 0.3%.

Choose the AMD EPYC 9565 if your workload specifically demands more physical cores and memory bandwidth over clock speed. While it loses most races, it wins decisively in two areas: finding prime numbers, where it scores 2422 versus 1138 (a 53% advantage for the EPYC), and physics simulations, scoring 18036 versus 13783 (a 23.6% lead). These wins are driven by its 72 cores and 144 threads, plus a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s. The EPYC 9565 also holds a 2.9% average benchmark score advantage over the AMD EPYC 9575F, its closest rival. It is the correct platform for memory-bound server tasks that can utilize every core, even if its 4.30 GHz boost clock limits its appeal for latency-sensitive work.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same foundational technology: a 4 nm TSMC process with Zen 5 architecture, but they diverge significantly in physical construction and feature sets. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX, codenamed Shimada Peak, is a 64-core, 128-thread part with a die size of 8x 70.6 mm² and 66,520 million transistors. Its cache layout features 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. It uses the AMD Socket sTR5 platform and supports eight-channel DDR5 memory, delivering 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Notably, its multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking.

The EPYC 9565, codenamed Turin, is a larger 72-core, 144-thread processor with a die size of 12x 70.6 mm² and a substantially higher transistor count of 99,780 million. Its cache hierarchy differs, offering 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and a larger 384 MB of shared L3. It uses the AMD Socket SP5 platform and features a twelve-channel memory bus, achieving a higher 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth. Crucially, the EPYC 9565 has a locked multiplier, preventing overclocking. Both parts support DDR5 ECC memory and provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU only.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock, and how does that affect performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has a significantly higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to the EPYC 9565's 4.30 GHz. This advantage is reflected in a 21.3% lead in Passmark single-thread tests and a 15.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core scores.

Q: Does the EPYC 9565 have more cores, and does that always mean it is faster?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9565 has 72 cores and 144 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. However, more cores do not always mean faster performance; the Threadripper wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including multi-core Cinebench tests, due to its higher clock speeds.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each processor?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9985WX supports eight-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC 9565 supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a higher bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s.

Q: Can I overclock either of these processors?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking. The AMD EPYC 9565 has a locked multiplier, so its clock speeds are fixed.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 has a larger L3 cache at 384 MB (shared), compared to the 256 MB L3 cache on the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The AMD EPYC 9565 was released on 2024-10-09, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX was released later on 2025-07-22.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX offers 64 cores and 128 threads, while the EPYC 9565 offers 72 cores and 144 threads. Base clocks are close (3.20 GHz vs 3.15 GHz), but boost clocks diverge sharply: 5.40 GHz for the Threadripper versus 4.30 GHz for the EPYC. The TDP also differs, with the Threadripper rated at 350 W and the EPYC at 400 W. Their sockets are incompatible: sTR5 for the Threadripper and SP5 for the EPYC. The EPYC 9565 has a larger transistor count (99,780 million vs 66,520 million) and more die chiplets (12x vs 8x). Cache configurations are distinct, with the EPYC offering 80 KB L1 per core and 384 MB shared L3, versus the Threadripper's 64 KB L1 per core and 256 MB L3. Memory channels and bandwidth favor the EPYC (twelve-channel, 576.0 GB/s) over the Threadripper (eight-channel, 409.6 GB/s). The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. The launch MSRP for the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is $7999, while the EPYC 9565 has a launch MSRP of $10486.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a dominant pattern: the Threadripper PRO 9985WX consistently outperforms the EPYC 9565, with two notable exceptions. The most striking trend is in the Cinebench suite, where the Threadripper wins all six tests by a uniform margin of 15.6%. This includes Cinebench R23 multi-core (132859 vs 114937) and single-core (18756 vs 16226), as well as older R15 and R20 iterations. This consistent delta across both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads suggests a clock-speed-driven advantage that scales uniformly.

In Passmark tests, the Threadripper's lead varies by workload. Its largest victory is in integer math, scoring 872710 versus 717948, a 21.6% advantage. It also leads in single-thread performance by 21.3% (4482 vs 3696), data compression by 12.9% (2912972 vs 2579631), and random string sorting by 12.7% (329014 vs 291941). More modest wins appear in data encryption (9.1%), extended instructions (7.5%), and floating-point math (0.7%). The multithread score also favors the Threadripper, at 150071 versus 135221, an 11% lead.

The EPYC 9565 secures its two wins in specialized areas. The largest delta is in find prime numbers, where it scores 2422 against the Threadripper's 1138, a massive 53% advantage. It also wins in physics, scoring 18036 versus 13783, a 23.6% lead. These results indicate that the EPYC's extra 8 cores and higher memory bandwidth are only beneficial for very specific parallel workloads, while the Threadripper's superior clock speed wins the vast majority of general-purpose and rendering tasks.