AMD EPYC 9684X vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive overall victory for the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX, which claims 15 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark wins against the AMD EPYC 9684X. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the Threadripper’s advantage across Cinebench workloads, where it leads by a uniform 43.8% in every single test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 148,601 against the EPYC’s 103,355, and in single-core it posts 20,979 versus 14,591. The identical 43.8% delta across R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-threaded, indicates a fundamental per-thread performance advantage rather than a scaling characteristic.

The PassMark suite reveals a more varied landscape. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX dominates in floating-point math with a 53.6% lead (725,066 to 472,174) and in extended instructions with a 52.1% margin (270,647 to 177,956). Integer math also favors the Threadripper substantially, at 42.6% (1,203,634 to 844,145), while multi-threaded performance sits at a 40.8% advantage (171,200 to 121,595). Data compression is another clear win for the Threadripper, 3,723,652 versus 2,698,807, a 38% gap. The smallest Threadripper win in the PassMark group is data encryption, where it leads by 15.8% (206,662 to 178,453). Random string sorting also goes to the Threadripper by 20% (418,973 to 349,126).

The EPYC 9684X secures its two victories in very specific workloads. In PassMark find prime numbers, the EPYC scores 2,020 against the Threadripper’s 1,476, a 26.9% margin. The other win is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC posts 24,686 versus 16,860, a 31.7% advantage. These are meaningful deltas, but they are isolated to two niche operations. The single-thread PassMark score also heavily favors the Threadripper, 4,542 to 2,891, which is a 57.1% lead, the largest percentage difference recorded in the entire comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the clear choice for general-purpose compute, rendering, and single-thread-sensitive workloads. Its 43.8% sweep across all Cinebench versions indicates superior sustained performance in CPU rendering tasks, which are typically multi-threaded but also benefit from strong per-core efficiency. The 57.1% lead in PassMark single-thread makes it the better option for applications that rely heavily on single-core responsiveness, such as legacy code or lightly threaded simulation tasks. The 53.6% advantage in floating-point math and 52.1% in extended instructions further point to a strong fit for scientific computing, financial modeling, and any workload using AVX-512 or similar vectorized instruction sets. Data compression and integer math also fall firmly in the Threadripper’s domain, with 38% and 42.6% leads respectively, making it the superior processor for database operations, file archiving, and general data processing.

The AMD EPYC 9684X has a narrow but distinct niche. Its 26.9% win in prime number finding suggests an advantage in certain integer-heavy algorithmic loops, possibly due to its larger shared L3 cache. The 31.7% margin in physics simulation is more notable, indicating that the EPYC’s cache architecture provides a measurable benefit for physics engines and collision detection workloads. These two wins, however, are offset by the Threadripper’s dominance in nearly every other metric. For a user deciding between the two, the EPYC 9684X only makes sense if the workload is dominated by those specific physics or prime-number operations. In any mixed or rendering-heavy environment, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the stronger performer across the board, as evidenced by its average benchmark score of 412,068 versus the EPYC’s 266,914.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has an average benchmark score of 412,068, while the AMD EPYC 9684X averages 266,914. The database also places the Threadripper at the 100th percentile among all CPUs, compared to the 99th percentile for the EPYC.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-threaded performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 20,979 versus the EPYC’s 14,591, a 43.8% lead. In PassMark single-thread, the Threadripper scores 4,542 against the EPYC’s 2,891, which is a 57.1% advantage.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the EPYC 9684X wins?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9684X wins two head-to-head tests. It scores 2,020 in PassMark find prime numbers versus the Threadripper’s 1,476, a 26.9% margin, and 24,686 in PassMark physics versus 16,860, a 31.7% advantage.

Q: What is the multi-threaded performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 148,601 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the EPYC 9684X scores 103,355. This represents a 43.8% advantage for the Threadripper.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The AMD EPYC 9684X has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: How does the EPYC 9684X compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The EPYC 9684X has an average score of 266,914. It is 4.6% behind the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X, 4.8% behind the Intel Xeon 6780E, 6.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon 6980P, and 6.5% behind the AMD EPYC 9565.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core specifications. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the AMD EPYC 9684X has a base clock of 2.55 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Threadripper has a TDP of 350 W, whereas the EPYC has a TDP of 400 W. The Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5.

Memory architecture also differs. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX supports eight-channel memory with a bandwidth of 409.6 GB/s. The EPYC 9684X supports twelve-channel memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory. PCIe capabilities are identical, with both offering Gen 5 and 128 lanes from the CPU.

The release dates are distinct: the Threadripper launched on 2025-07-22, while the EPYC launched on 2023-06-12. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9684X is locked. The launch MSRP for the Threadripper is $11700, and for the EPYC it is $14756. The part numbers are 100-000001361 for the Threadripper and 100-100000892 for the EPYC.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two AMD processors is substantial. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX is built on the Zen 5 architecture with the codename Shimada Peak, while the EPYC 9684X uses the Zen 4 architecture with the codename Genoa-X. The Threadripper is fabricated on a 4 nm process node, whereas the EPYC uses a 5 nm node, both by TSMC. The Threadripper has 99,780 million transistors spread across 12 dies of 70.6 mm² each. The EPYC has 135,240 million transistors across 12 dies of 72 mm² each.

Cache configurations differ markedly. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. The critical difference is in L3 cache: the Threadripper has 384 MB, while the EPYC 9684X has 1152 MB of shared L3, which is three times larger. This larger cache is likely the reason for the EPYC’s wins in prime number finding and physics simulation, as those workloads benefit from larger data residency. The Threadripper compensates with a much higher boost clock, 5.40 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, and a newer architecture, which explains its dominance in single-threaded and most multi-threaded benchmarks.

Both processors have 96 cores and 192 threads, and both are classified as server/workstation parts with active production status. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX is part of the 9000 series, while the EPYC 9684X belongs to the EPYC 9004 series. The Threadripper’s generation is listed as Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5, Shimada Peak), while the EPYC’s generation is EPYC (Zen 4, Genoa). The EPYC 9684X has no integrated graphics, and the Threadripper also lists integrated graphics as N/A. The fundamental architectural takeaway is that the Threadripper relies on higher clocks and a newer process, while the EPYC leans on a massive L3 cache to win specific cache-sensitive workloads.