AMD EPYC 9684X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a decisive overall win for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, which takes 13 of the 17 recorded comparisons against the AMD EPYC 9684X. The most striking margin comes in single-threaded performance, where the 9985WX scores 4482 in the Passmark single-thread test, a 55% advantage over the EPYC's 2891. This is the largest gap in any head-to-head result, and it underscores how far the newer architecture has pushed per-core capability.

The Cinebench suite tells a consistent story. Across R15, R20, and R23, the 9985WX leads in both multi-core and single-core runs by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9985WX scores 132859 versus 103355, a 28.5% lead. Single-core in R23 shows 18756 against 14591, again 28.5% ahead. The multi-core wins are notable because the EPYC 9684X has more cores (96 versus 64), yet the Threadripper's higher clock speeds and newer Zen 5 design still win by a wide margin.

Passmark results show a mixed bag. The 9985WX wins data compression by 7.9% (2912972 versus 2698807), extended instructions by 26.6% (225340 versus 177956), floating-point math by 17.2% (553348 versus 472174), and integer math by a slim 3.4% (872710 versus 844145). The Threadripper also leads multithread by 23.4% (150071 versus 121595). However, the EPYC 9684X fights back in several specialized workloads. It wins data encryption by 13.2% (178453 versus 154824), find prime numbers by 43.7% (2020 versus 1138), physics by 44.2% (24686 versus 13783), and random string sorting by 5.8% (349126 versus 329014).

The overall average benchmark score reflects this split: the 9985WX averages 320749, while the EPYC 9684X averages 266914. Both parts sit in the 99th percentile of all CPUs in the database, but the Threadripper's average is roughly 20% higher on a raw points basis. The EPYC's wins are real, but they are concentrated in a narrow set of integer-heavy and physics-style workloads where its massive core count and large cache can dominate.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different generations and design philosophies. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is built on Zen 5, with the codename Shimada Peak, and uses a 4 nm process from TSMC. It packs 64 cores and 128 threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The EPYC 9684X, in contrast, uses Zen 4 with the Genoa-X codename, on a 5 nm TSMC node, and scales to 96 cores and 192 threads. Its base clock is 2.55 GHz, boosting to 3.70 GHz.

Cache configuration is a major differentiator. The 9985WX has 256 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 9684X carries a massive 1152 MB of shared L3. That extra cache, characteristic of the 3D V-Cache lineage, helps explain its wins in cache-sensitive workloads like find prime numbers and physics. Both parts have 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, but the EPYC's larger L3 is a clear architectural advantage for certain data-heavy tasks.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The 9985WX uses 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies. The EPYC 9684X uses 135,240 million transistors across 12x 72 mm² dies. This reflects the EPYC's higher core count and the additional cache silicon. Memory support also diverges: the 9985WX uses an eight-channel DDR5 memory bus with 409.6 GB/s of bandwidth, while the EPYC 9684X uses a twelve-channel DDR5 bus with 460.8 GB/s. The EPYC's extra channels and bandwidth align with its server-focused role.

Both parts support ECC memory and provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. The 9985WX uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC 9684X uses AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, while the EPYC is locked. The 9985WX launched in July 2025, whereas the EPYC 9684X launched in June 2023, a gap of roughly two years that explains much of the performance difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the clear choice for workloads that reward high clock speeds and modern IPC. Its single-thread scores are far ahead, with the 55% Passmark single-thread lead and 28.5% Cinebench single-core margins. This makes it better suited for rendering, video editing, and any task where per-core performance matters alongside multi-thread throughput. The 9985WX also wins in floating-point math, integer math, extended instructions, and data compression, covering a broad range of general compute tasks.

The EPYC 9684X wins specifically in physics, prime number finding, data encryption, and random string sorting. These are workloads that benefit from the massive 1152 MB L3 cache and the higher core count. Physics simulations and prime number calculations often use large datasets that fit in cache, and the EPYC's architecture is optimized for that. Data encryption also leans on the extra cores and cache, giving it a 13.2% edge.

For streaming multithreaded workloads like Cinebench R23 multi-core, the 9985WX still wins by 28.5% despite having 32 fewer cores. This indicates that the Zen 5 IPC and higher boost clocks more than compensate for the core deficit. The Threadripper also leads in Passmark multithread by 23.4%, so even in heavily parallel tasks, the newer design holds the advantage. The EPYC's wins are narrower in scope, appearing in specific algorithmic patterns rather than broad compute categories.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance?

A: The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX dominates. It scores 4482 in Passmark single-thread versus 2891 for the EPYC 9684X, a 55% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 18756 against 14591, a 28.5% advantage.

Q: Does the EPYC 9684X win in any multi-core test?

A: No. Despite having 96 cores versus 64, the EPYC loses all multi-core Cinebench tests. In R23 multi-core, the 9985WX scores 132859 versus 103355, a 28.5% win. The Threadripper also wins Passmark multithread by 23.4%.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9684X win in physics and prime numbers?

A: The EPYC's 1152 MB of L3 cache and 96 cores give it an edge in cache-resident workloads. It wins Passmark physics by 44.2% and find prime numbers by 43.7%, likely because these tasks repeatedly access data that fits in the large shared cache.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The EPYC 9684X has a twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC offers more bandwidth, which helps in memory-heavy server workloads.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The EPYC 9684X has 96 cores and 192 threads. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The EPYC has a 50% core count advantage, but it does not translate to a performance win in most tests.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9684X is locked. This makes the Threadripper a better fit for enthusiasts who want to push clocks beyond stock settings.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 64 (9985WX) versus 96 (9684X)
• Threads: 128 versus 192
• Base clock: 3.20 GHz versus 2.55 GHz
• Boost clock: 5.40 GHz versus 3.70 GHz
• TDP: 350 W versus 400 W
• Socket: AMD Socket sTR5 versus AMD Socket SP5
• Architecture: Zen 5 versus Zen 4
• Codename: Shimada Peak versus Genoa-X
• Process node: 4 nm versus 5 nm
• Transistors: 66,520 million versus 135,240 million
• Die size: 8x 70.6 mm² versus 12x 72 mm²
• L3 cache: 256 MB versus 1152 MB (shared)
• Memory bus: Eight-channel versus Twelve-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 409.6 GB/s versus 460.8 GB/s
• Release date: 2025-07-22 versus 2023-06-12
• Launch MSRP: $7999 versus $14756
• Multiplier: Unlocked versus Locked

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for most users. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the stronger processor across the majority of benchmark tests, including all Cinebench workloads, single-thread performance, and most Passmark compute categories. It achieves this with fewer cores, lower TDP, and a smaller L3 cache, which speaks to the efficiency of the Zen 5 architecture. The 55% single-thread lead alone makes it the better choice for workstation tasks where responsiveness and per-core speed matter.

The AMD EPYC 9684X should only be chosen if the workload specifically matches its strengths. Its wins in physics, prime number finding, data encryption, and random string sorting point to server-side or scientific workloads that can exploit the 1152 MB L3 cache and 96 cores. For those niche tasks, the EPYC's 44.2% physics lead and 43.7% prime number lead are substantial. But for general compute, rendering, and mixed workloads, the Threadripper's 28.5% Cinebench margins and broad Passmark advantages make it the superior option.

The average benchmark scores sum it up: 320749 for the 9985WX versus 266914 for the 9684X. Both are in the 99th percentile, but the Threadripper sits clearly above the EPYC in overall performance. If you are building a workstation or a server that handles varied tasks, the 9985WX is the data-backed pick. If your codebase is dominated by cache-heavy, high-core-count algorithms, the EPYC 9684X remains a specialized tool worth considering.