AMD EPYC 9655P vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

AMD EPYC 9655P and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X are both Zen 5 behemoths, but they are built for entirely different corners of the computing world. The EPYC 9655P is a 96-core server processor aimed at massive parallel workloads, while the Threadripper 9980X is a 64-core desktop part designed for high-frequency responsiveness and workstation flexibility. Benchmark data shows the EPYC dominates nearly every multithreaded test, but the Threadripper strikes back with a significant single-thread victory, making the choice between them a question of workload priority rather than raw capability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9655P is the clear winner for throughput-heavy, multi-core workloads. Across the head-to-head benchmark suite, it takes 15 of 17 tests. Its largest victories come in areas that scale with core count and memory bandwidth: PassMark’s physics test shows a 223% lead, prime number finding is 119.2% ahead, and random string sorting wins by 54.7%. Integer math and encryption also favor the EPYC heavily, with leads of 40.5% and 40.1% respectively. This is a processor that chews through parallel tasks without breaking a sweat, and its 100th percentile ranking among all CPUs confirms its position at the top of the performance heap.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X wins in exactly one meaningful category: single-thread performance. It beats the EPYC in PassMark’s single-thread test by 15.2%, scoring 4537 against 3849. This reflects its higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 4.50 GHz, and its unlocked multiplier makes it a better candidate for enthusiasts who want to push clocks even further. For tasks like gaming, lightly threaded applications, or any workflow where one or two cores matter more than all the others, the Threadripper is the better pick. It also ranks at the 99th percentile, so it is not far behind the EPYC in overall standing, but its wins are concentrated in latency-sensitive rather than throughput-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on TSMC’s 4 nm process and use the Zen 5 architecture, but they diverge sharply in scale and packaging. The EPYC 9655P, codenamed Turin, packs 96 cores and 192 threads across twelve 70.6 mm² dies, totaling 99,780 million transistors. The Threadripper 9980X, codenamed Shimada Peak, uses eight of those same 70.6 mm² dies for 64 cores and 128 threads, with 66,520 million transistors. The EPYC’s extra four dies explain its higher core count and its 384 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to the Threadripper’s 256 MB.

Memory architecture is another major split. The EPYC 9655P runs a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper 9980X is limited to quad-channel DDR5 and 204.8 GB/s. That 2.8x bandwidth advantage is a key reason the EPYC wins so decisively in memory-intensive tasks like data compression and random string sorting. PCIe lane counts also differ: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Threadripper offers 80 Gen 5 lanes. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC is locked (multiplier not unlocked), whereas the Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

Socket and market positioning round out the differences. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5 and is classified as a Server/Workstation part, released on 2024-10-09. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, targets the Desktop segment, and launched later on 2025-07-29. The EPYC’s TDP is 400 W, while the Threadripper sits at 350 W. Both have no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results tell a consistent story: the EPYC 9655P leads every Cinebench test by exactly 4.5%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the EPYC scores 136354 against the Threadripper’s 130529. Single-core R23 shows 19250 versus 18427. The same 4.5% margin repeats in R20 multicore (57268 vs 54822), R20 single-core (8085 vs 7739), R15 multicore (13744 vs 13157), and R15 single-core (1940 vs 1857). This uniformity suggests the EPYC’s advantage in these tests comes from its higher core count and memory bandwidth, but the Threadripper’s higher boost clock keeps the gap relatively modest in single-threaded rendering tasks.

PassMark results show where the EPYC truly pulls away. Data compression is 17.2% faster (3486158 vs 2974534), multithread score is 13.3% higher (160490 vs 141641), and floating point math is 28.1% ahead (715866 vs 559003). The biggest blowout is in physics: the EPYC scores 25847 against only 8001, a 223% difference. Prime number finding is similarly lopsided at 119.2% (1686 vs 769). Integer math and encryption both show roughly 40% leads for the EPYC, with scores of 1225251 vs 872071 and 220074 vs 157137 respectively. Random string sorting favors the EPYC by 54.7% (451824 vs 292083). Extended instructions are nearly a tie, with the EPYC leading by just 0.7% (230609 vs 228959).

The Threadripper’s only wins come in the PassMark single-thread test, where it scores 4537 versus the EPYC’s 3849, a 15.2% advantage. This is a substantial margin and reflects its 5.40 GHz boost clock. However, it is the sole bright spot in an otherwise one-sided comparison.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD EPYC 9655P is the obvious choice for anyone running heavily parallel, memory-bandwidth-hungry workloads. Its 96 cores, 384 MB L3 cache, and twelve-channel memory give it crushing leads in physics, prime number finding, encryption, and integer math. If your work involves simulation, rendering, data compression, or any task that scales across dozens of threads, the EPYC’s 100th percentile ranking and 15 benchmark wins make it the superior tool. Its launch MSRP is $10811.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is the pick for users who need strong multi-core performance but also value single-thread speed and overclocking flexibility. Its 15.2% single-thread lead and unlocked multiplier make it more suitable for interactive workstations where some tasks are latency-sensitive. It also costs less at launch MSRP of $4999, though this analysis does not weigh price as a factor. For a desktop user who wants 64 cores but does not need the EPYC’s full server feature set or 128 PCIe lanes, the Threadripper offers a better balance of frequency and core count.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9655P wins every multi-core benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It leads Cinebench R23 multicore by 4.5% (136354 vs 130529) and PassMark multithread by 13.3% (160490 vs 141641).

Q: Is the Threadripper 9980X better for single-threaded tasks?

A: Yes. The Threadripper 9980X scores 4537 in PassMark single-thread, which is 15.2% higher than the EPYC 9655P’s 3849. This is its only benchmark win.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The EPYC 9655P has 96 cores and 192 threads, while the Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads. The EPYC also has 384 MB of L3 cache versus 256 MB on the Threadripper.

Q: What explains the EPYC’s huge lead in the physics test?

A: The EPYC 9655P scores 25847 in PassMark physics, which is 223% higher than the Threadripper’s 8001. This is likely due to its higher core count and much larger memory bandwidth of 576.0 GB/s versus 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Can the Threadripper be overclocked?

A: Yes, the Threadripper 9980X has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 9655P does not, as its multiplier is locked.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the EPYC 9655P and the Threadripper 9980X support ECC memory. They also both use DDR5, but the EPYC has a twelve-channel memory bus while the Threadripper has a quad-channel bus.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9655P | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |

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

| Cores | 96 | 64 |

| Threads | 192 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 400 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

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

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

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

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

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

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

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

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

| Launch MSRP | $10811 | $4999 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001522 | 100-000001593 |