AMD EPYC 9745 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9745 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X are both Zen 5 monsters, but they serve fundamentally different masters. The data shows a clear split: the 9980X wins the headline Cinebench races and PassMark's multithreaded test, while the EPYC 9745 dominates in raw computational workloads like integer math, floating-point math, and data compression. The EPYC 9745 takes 8 benchmark wins, the Threadripper takes 9, but the margins tell the real story—the EPYC's victories are often massive, while the Threadripper's single-core advantage is its most decisive edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC 9745 scores 17,122 against the Threadripper's 8,001—a 114% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison and points to the EPYC's exceptional capability in simulation and physics-based workloads. Similarly, in PassMark integer math, the EPYC posts 1,224,315 versus 872,071, a 40.4% lead. The EPYC also wins floating-point math by 36.2% (761,219 vs 559,003) and random string sorting by 60.6% (468,975 vs 292,083). These are not small margins; they indicate a processor that simply crushes through parallel arithmetic and data manipulation tasks.

The EPYC's dominance extends to data encryption, where it scores 229,447 against 157,137, a 46% lead, and data compression, where it reaches 3,929,890 versus 2,974,534, a 32.1% advantage. Extended instructions also favor the EPYC at 280,477 vs 228,959, a 22.5% gap, and find prime numbers shows a 27.3% win (979 vs 769). These results consistently show the 128-core EPYC leveraging its massive core count to outpace the 64-core Threadripper in throughput-oriented tasks.

However, the Threadripper 9980X strikes back decisively in single-threaded performance. In PassMark single-thread, it scores 4,537 versus the EPYC's 2,806—a 38.2% advantage. This is the largest single-core gap in the comparison and reflects the Threadripper's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus the EPYC's 3.70 GHz. The Cinebench results reinforce this pattern, with the Threadripper winning all six tests by a consistent 14.9% margin. For example, Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Threadripper at 130,529 against the EPYC's 111,093, and single-core shows 18,427 vs 15,683. Notably, the Threadripper wins Cinebench R15 multicore (13,157 vs 11,198) and R20 multicore (54,822 vs 46,659), despite having half the cores—this suggests its per-core efficiency and clock speed overcome the core count deficit in this workload.

The PassMark multithread test is the only other win for the Threadripper, at 141,641 vs 130,698, a 7.7% lead. This is curious because it contradicts the EPYC's wins in other multithreaded tests, but the data is clear. Overall, the Threadripper's wins are concentrated in Cinebench and single-thread performance, while the EPYC's wins are spread across PassMark's computational suite. The average benchmark score confirms the EPYC's overall strength: 425,973 versus 321,753, a 32.4% advantage. The EPYC also sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, while the Threadripper is at the 99th.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9745 is the clear choice for server and workstation workloads that demand massive parallel throughput. Its wins in integer math, floating-point math, physics, and data encryption show that it excels in scientific computing, financial modeling, and any task that can scale across 256 threads. The 114% lead in PassMark physics is particularly telling—this processor is built for heavy simulation and rendering tasks. The 46% lead in encryption also positions it well for security, database, and virtualized environments where data protection is critical. Its 32.1% win in data compression makes it ideal for file servers and backup systems. In short, if the workload is highly parallel and compute-intensive, the EPYC 9745 is the stronger part.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X wins where clock speed and single-thread performance matter. Its 38.2% lead in PassMark single-thread and 14.9% lead across all Cinebench tests indicate superior responsiveness in lightly-threaded applications, legacy software, and tasks that cannot fully utilize 128 cores. The Cinebench R23 multi-core win (130,529 vs 111,093) suggests that even in some multithreaded scenarios, the Threadripper's higher clocks and better per-core IPC can overcome its core-count disadvantage. This makes it a stronger choice for desktop workstation use, where a mix of single-threaded interactive work and moderate parallel rendering is common. The 7.7% win in PassMark multithread also shows it holds its own in certain parallel workloads, likely those that are less cache- or memory-bandwidth-sensitive.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9745 has 128 cores and 256 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is significantly faster, with a PassMark single-thread score of 4,537 versus the EPYC's 2,806, a 38.2% advantage.

Q: Does the EPYC 9745 win in any multithreaded tests?

A: Yes, the EPYC wins PassMark integer math (1,224,315 vs 872,071), floating-point math (761,219 vs 559,003), and physics (17,122 vs 8,001), among others.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Threadripper 9980X wins with a score of 130,529 versus the EPYC's 111,093, a 14.9% lead.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9745 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper 9980X has a quad-channel bus with 204.8 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Threadripper 9980X has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 9745 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious difference: the EPYC 9745 offers 128 cores and 256 threads, double the Threadripper's 64 cores and 128 threads. Base clocks also differ, with the EPYC at 2.40 GHz and the Threadripper at 3.20 GHz. The boost clocks are further apart: 3.70 GHz for the EPYC versus 5.40 GHz for the Threadripper. Thermal design power is 400 watts for the EPYC and 350 watts for the Threadripper. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR5 with 204.8 GB/s. PCIe lanes also differ: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, the Threadripper provides 80. The EPYC is a server/workstation part with a locked multiplier, while the Threadripper is a desktop part with an unlocked multiplier. The launch MSRP is $12141 for the EPYC and $4999 for the Threadripper. The EPYC was released on 2024-10-09, while the Threadripper was released on 2025-07-29.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use the Zen 5 architecture, but they are built on different process nodes. The EPYC 9745 is on a 3 nm node, while the Threadripper 9980X is on a 4 nm node, both fabricated by TSMC. The codenames differ: Turin for the EPYC and Shimada Peak for the Threadripper. The L1 cache is 80 KB per core for the EPYC and 64 KB per core for the Threadripper. The L2 cache is identical at 1 MB per core. Both have 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper has a disclosed transistor count of 66,520 million and a die size of 8x 70.6 mm², while the EPYC's transistor count and die size are not listed. Both support ECC memory and have no integrated graphics. The market segments differ: server/workstation for the EPYC, desktop for the Threadripper.

The Verdict

Choosing between these two processors depends entirely on the workload. The data shows the AMD EPYC 9745 is the superior part for raw parallel compute. Its 32.4% higher average benchmark score, 100th percentile ranking, and massive wins in integer math (40.4%), floating-point math (36.2%), and physics (114%) make it the definitive choice for server racks, scientific clusters, and any environment where 128 cores can be fully utilized. The EPYC's twelve-channel memory and 576.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it a structural advantage in memory-hungry workloads. If the task is batch rendering, large-scale data analysis, or virtualization, the EPYC 9745 is the clear winner.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X is the better pick for desktop workstation users who need a mix of high single-thread performance and strong multi-core capabilities. Its 38.2% lead in single-thread performance and 14.9% advantage across all Cinebench tests make it more responsive for interactive work, code compilation, and applications that are not perfectly parallelized. The Threadripper's lower launch MSRP of $4999 versus $12141 also makes it more accessible, though the benchmark data alone justifies its choice for users prioritizing clock speed and per-core efficiency. If the workload is a blend of single-threaded tasks and occasional parallel rendering, the Threadripper 9980X offers the better balance. For pure throughput, the EPYC 9745 is unmatched.