AMD EPYC 9655 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9655 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X represent two distinct interpretations of AMD’s Zen 5 architecture. The EPYC 9655 is a server-class behemoth with 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Threadripper 9980X is a desktop-focused part with 64 cores and 128 threads. Both are built on the same 4 nm TSMC process, but their benchmark profiles diverge sharply. Across the 17 head-to-head tests, the EPYC 9655 wins 14, while the Threadripper 9980X takes 3. The average benchmark score for the EPYC 9655 is 373484, compared to 344569 for the Threadripper 9980X, a delta of 8.4% in favor of the server chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this comparison is PassMark’s physics test, where the EPYC 9655 scores 25958 against the Threadripper’s 9793. That is a 165.1% advantage, the largest margin in any benchmark here. The gap likely stems from the EPYC’s massive core count, which allows it to process parallel physics workloads far more effectively than the Threadripper’s smaller thread pool.

The EPYC 9655 also dominates integer math, scoring 1139221 versus 900760 for the Threadripper 9980X, a 26.5% lead. Random string sorting follows a similar pattern, with the EPYC at 440608 and the Threadripper at 347099, a 26.9% difference. Data encryption is another major win for the EPYC, which posts 210541 against 159952, a 31.6% advantage. The EPYC also leads in floating-point math by 11.9%, with 662949 versus 592543.

Prime number finding is another area where the EPYC’s core count shines. The EPYC 9655 scores 1599, while the Threadripper 9980X manages only 837, a 91% difference. This test scales heavily with core count, and the EPYC’s 96 cores give it a clear edge over the Threadripper’s 64.

The Cinebench suite shows a narrower but consistent margin. Across R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the EPYC 9655 wins every test by exactly 1.6%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the EPYC scores 132672 versus 130529, while in single-core it posts 18730 against 18427. This uniformity suggests that per-core performance is nearly identical, with the EPYC’s advantage coming from its additional cores.

PassMark data compression goes to the EPYC by 2.1%, with 3271019 versus 3204633. The multithread test also favors the EPYC, 156085 versus 153564, a 1.6% lead. These are modest margins, indicating that in heavily threaded but memory-bound workloads, the two chips are closer than the core counts would suggest.

The Threadripper 9980X’s wins are concentrated in two areas. PassMark single-thread performance goes to the Threadripper by 16.2%, with 4591 versus 3845. Extended instructions is the other win, with the Threadripper scoring 252783 against 203302, a 19.6% advantage. These results reflect the Threadripper’s higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 4.50 GHz, which gives it an edge in lightly threaded tasks.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Zen 5 architecture using a 4 nm process at TSMC, but their physical implementations differ significantly. The EPYC 9655 uses 12 chiplets, each 70.6 mm², totaling 99,780 million transistors. The Threadripper 9980X uses 8 chiplets of the same 70.6 mm² size, with 66,520 million transistors. This difference in chiplet count directly explains the core disparity: 96 cores versus 64.

Cache configurations also diverge. The EPYC 9655 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, matching the Threadripper’s per-core L2. However, the EPYC’s L3 cache is 384 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 256 MB shared. The larger L3 on the EPYC is a direct consequence of having more chiplets, each contributing its own slice of L3.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The EPYC 9655 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper 9980X has a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, but the EPYC’s threefold bandwidth advantage is critical for server workloads that stream large datasets.

PCIe connectivity also favors the EPYC, which offers Gen 5 with 128 lanes (CPU only) versus 80 lanes on the Threadripper. The Threadripper’s socket is AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the EPYC is locked.

The Threadripper 9980X has a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC’s 2.60 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. However, the EPYC has a higher TDP of 400 watts versus 350 watts, reflecting its larger core count. The Threadripper is classified as a desktop processor, while the EPYC targets the server/workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9655 is the clear choice for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 96 cores and 192 threads, combined with twelve-channel DDR5, make it ideal for virtualization, database processing, and scientific computing. The 165.1% lead in PassMark physics and 91% lead in prime number finding illustrate its dominance in parallel compute. The 31.6% advantage in data encryption is particularly relevant for server-side security tasks.

The Threadripper 9980X wins in scenarios where single-threaded performance and clock speed matter more than raw core count. Its 16.2% lead in PassMark single-thread performance and 19.6% lead in extended instructions make it better suited for legacy applications, certain code compilation tasks, and workloads that cannot fully utilize more than 64 cores. The higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz gives it an edge in latency-sensitive tasks.

For memory bandwidth, the EPYC’s 576.0 GB/s versus the Threadripper’s 204.8 GB/s is decisive. Any workload that streams large amounts of data, such as in-memory analytics or high-performance computing, will benefit disproportionately from the EPYC. However, the Threadripper’s unlocked multiplier offers flexibility for overclocking, which the EPYC cannot match.

The Threadripper’s smaller footprint in terms of PCIe lanes (80 versus 128) and memory channels (quad versus twelve) makes it less suitable for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations. The EPYC’s larger L3 cache of 384 MB versus 256 MB also helps with working sets that exceed the Threadripper’s capacity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9655 has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: How do they compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The Threadripper 9980X wins PassMark single-thread by 16.2%, scoring 4591 versus 3845 for the EPYC 9655, likely due to its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9655 has a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s, while the Threadripper 9980X has a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor is better for encryption workloads?

A: The EPYC 9655 leads PassMark data encryption by 31.6%, with 210541 versus 159952, making it significantly stronger for this task.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 9655 and the Threadripper 9980X support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The EPYC 9655 has an average benchmark score of 373484, while the Threadripper 9980X has 344569. The EPYC is 8.4% ahead according to the nearestRivals deltaPct.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD EPYC 9655 for most compute-intensive tasks. It wins 14 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks and holds an 8.4% lead in average benchmark score over the Threadripper 9980X (373484 versus 344569). The EPYC’s advantages in physics (165.1%), prime number finding (91%), and data encryption (31.6%) are decisive for server and workstation workloads that demand massive parallel throughput.

The Threadripper 9980X, however, is not without merit. Its 16.2% lead in single-thread performance and 19.6% lead in extended instructions make it the better choice for applications that rely on high clock speeds rather than core counts. Users who prioritize overclocking will also prefer the Threadripper, as it has an unlocked multiplier while the EPYC does not.

The decision ultimately comes down to workload. For data centers, cloud infrastructure, or scientific computing where core count and memory bandwidth are paramount, the EPYC 9655 is the stronger option. Its 96 cores, 384 MB of L3 cache, and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth provide a substantial advantage in parallel and memory-intensive tasks.

For a desktop workstation focused on single-threaded responsiveness, legacy software compatibility, or workloads that cap out at 64 cores, the Threadripper 9980X offers a compelling package with higher clocks and a lower TDP of 350 watts. Both processors achieve a 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs, indicating top-tier performance, but the EPYC 9655 does so with a broader margin of victory in more tests.