AMD EPYC 9655 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison
AMD EPYC 9655
Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: AMD EPYC 9655 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX
The AMD EPYC 9655 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX are both Zen 5 powerhouses, but the benchmark data clearly separates them into distinct roles. The EPYC 9655 wins the majority of the heavy multi-threaded workloads, dominating in data encryption, integer math, and physics simulation, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX takes the crown in single-threaded tasks and Cinebench rendering. The EPYC 9655 is the clear choice for data-center and server-centric compute, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is better suited for workstation workloads that prioritize raw single-core speed and familiar rendering benchmarks.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear split: the AMD EPYC 9655 is the processor for massive, parallel server workloads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the better pick for workstation tasks that lean on single-thread speed. The EPYC 9655 wins 8 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but its victories are often by massive margins, such as an 88.3% lead in PassMark physics and a 40.4% lead in find prime numbers. Conversely, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins 9 comparisons, but its Cinebench victories are narrow, with all deltas at -0.1% or -0.2%. The verdict is straightforward: choose the EPYC 9655 for encryption, math, and server-class parallel processing; choose the Threadripper PRO 9985WX for single-thread performance and its 14.2% lead in PassMark single-thread scores.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture but differ significantly in scale and configuration. The EPYC 9655 uses the Zen 5 architecture under the Turin codename, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses the same Zen 5 core under the Shimada Peak codename. Both are fabricated on a 4 nm process at TSMC, but the EPYC 9655 packs 96 cores and 192 threads, compared to the Threadripper’s 64 cores and 128 threads. This core advantage is reflected in the transistor count: the EPYC 9655 has 99,780 million transistors across 12x 70.6 mm² dies, whereas the Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies.
Cache configurations also differ. The EPYC 9655 offers a massive 384 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 256 MB. L1 cache is also larger on the EPYC at 80 KB per core versus 64 KB per core, though both share the same 1 MB per core L2 cache. Memory support further separates them: the EPYC 9655 uses a Twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses an Eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9655 is locked.
Where Each One Wins
The EPYC 9655 dominates in workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. In PassMark data encryption, it scores 210,555 versus 154,824, a 36% advantage. Its integer math score is 1,139,161 against 872,710, a 30.5% lead. The most dramatic difference is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC scores 25,947 versus 13,783, an 88.3% margin. It also wins in floating-point math (662,958 vs 553,348, a 19.8% lead), random string sorting (439,682 vs 329,014, a 33.6% lead), and data compression (3,271,896 vs 2,912,972, a 12.3% lead). The EPYC’s find prime numbers score of 1,598 versus 1,138 shows a 40.4% advantage.
The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins in single-threaded performance and specific instruction workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score is 4,482 versus 3,847, a 14.2% lead. It also wins in extended instructions with 225,340 versus 203,285, a 9.8% margin. In Cinebench tests, the Threadripper consistently edges out the EPYC, though by slim margins: R15 multi-core (13,392 vs 13,373, -0.1%), R20 multi-core (55,800 vs 55,722, -0.1%), and R23 multi-core (132,859 vs 132,672, -0.1%). Single-core Cinebench results follow the same pattern, with the Threadripper leading by -0.2% in R15 and -0.1% in R20 and R23.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded tasks?
A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is faster in single-threaded tasks, as shown by its PassMark single-thread score of 4,482 versus the EPYC 9655's 3,847, a 14.2% advantage.
Q: How much better is the EPYC 9655 in encryption workloads?
A: The EPYC 9655 leads by 36% in PassMark data encryption, scoring 210,555 compared to the Threadripper PRO 9985WX's 154,824.
Q: Are the Cinebench scores significantly different between the two?
A: No, they are nearly identical. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX scores 132,859 versus the EPYC 9655's 132,672, a difference of just -0.1%.
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The AMD EPYC 9655 has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads.
Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?
A: The EPYC 9655 offers 576.0 GB/s bandwidth via a twelve-channel memory bus, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX offers 409.6 GB/s via an eight-channel bus.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has a higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, compared to the EPYC 9655's 4.50 GHz.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The biggest wins for the EPYC 9655 are in PassMark physics, where it scores 25,947 versus 13,783, an 88.3% advantage. This is followed by a 40.4% win in find prime numbers (1,598 vs 1,138). In integer math, the EPYC leads with 1,139,161 versus 872,710, a 30.5% margin, and in random string sorting it wins 439,682 versus 329,014, a 33.6% lead. Data encryption shows a 36% advantage (210,555 vs 154,824), and floating-point math is won by 19.8% (662,958 vs 553,348). The EPYC also wins data compression by 12.3% (3,271,896 vs 2,912,972) and multithread by 4% (156,110 vs 150,071).
The Threadripper PRO 9985WX’s largest win is in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4,482 versus 3,847, a 14.2% margin. It also wins extended instructions by 9.8% (225,340 vs 203,285). In Cinebench, the Threadripper wins all six tests but by minimal margins. The R15 multi-core score is 13,392 versus 13,373 (-0.1%), and R15 single-core is 1,890 versus 1,887 (-0.2%). R20 multi-core is 55,800 versus 55,722 (-0.1%), and R20 single-core is 7,877 versus 7,866 (-0.1%). R23 multi-core is 132,859 versus 132,672 (-0.1%), and R23 single-core is 18,756 versus 18,730 (-0.1%). The overall win count is 8 for the EPYC 9655 and 9 for the Threadripper PRO 9985WX.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specifications. The EPYC 9655 has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks differ, with the EPYC at 2.60 GHz and the Threadripper at 3.20 GHz. Boost clocks also differ, with the EPYC at 4.50 GHz and the Threadripper at 5.40 GHz. The TDP is 400 for the EPYC and 350 for the Threadripper. The EPYC 9655 uses the AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses the AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC has 99,780 million transistors across 12x 70.6 mm² dies, whereas the Threadripper has 66,520 million across 8x 70.6 mm². L1 cache is 80 KB per core on the EPYC and 64 KB per core on the Threadripper. L3 cache is 384 MB on the EPYC and 256 MB on the Threadripper. Memory bus width is Twelve-channel for the EPYC and Eight-channel for the Threadripper, with bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9655 does not. The release dates are 2024-10-09 for the EPYC and 2025-07-22 for the Threadripper.