AMD EPYC 9745 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

The Verdict

The data splits these two AMD flagships into clearly different roles. The EPYC 9745 is the throughput monster: 128 cores and 256 threads on a 3nm node, with a 100th-percentile ranking among all CPUs. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX, with 64 cores and 128 threads on 4nm, counters with raw speed per thread and higher clock ceilings (3.20 GHz base, 5.40 GHz boost vs. 2.40 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost). The EPYC wins 7 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, but the Threadripper takes 10, including every Cinebench test and the PassMark multithread score.

Choose the EPYC 9745 if your workload is massively parallel data processing—compression, encryption, floating-point math, integer math, random string sorting, and physics all favor it by double-digit margins. Choose the Threadripper PRO 9985WX if you need the fastest possible single-thread performance (37.4% ahead in PassMark single-thread) and strong all-around multithreaded rendering, where it leads by 16.4% across every Cinebench R15/R20/R23 test. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, making it the choice for overclocking-oriented builders; the EPYC is locked.

For server/rack deployments, the EPYC's twelve-channel memory bus (576.0 GB/s) and 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only) align with dense compute. For a workstation, the Threadripper's eight-channel bus (409.6 GB/s) and same 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes are still substantial, while its higher clocks make interactive responsiveness better. The Threadripper's launch MSRP is $7999; the EPYC's is $12141.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9745 dominates in data-heavy, parallelizable operations. PassMark data compression shows a 34.9% lead, data encryption a 48.2% lead, floating-point math a 37.6% lead, and integer math a 40.3% lead. Random string sorting is 42.5% faster, and physics processing is 24.2% faster. These are workloads where core count (128 vs. 64) outweighs clock speed, and the EPYC's 256MB shared L3 and 80KB L1 per core feed the threads effectively.

The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins every Cinebench iteration—R15, R20, and R23, both single- and multi-core—by a consistent 16.4%. The PassMark multithread test also goes to the Threadripper by 12.9%, and find prime numbers by 14%. Single-thread performance is the biggest gap: 4482 vs. 2806, a 37.4% swing. This indicates the Threadripper's higher boost clock (5.40 vs. 3.70 GHz) and larger L1 per core (64KB vs. 80KB? No—the EPYC has 80KB, Threadripper has 64KB, but the higher clock dominates). For compilation, rendering, or simulation that doesn't scale perfectly to 128 cores, the Threadripper's per-thread efficiency wins.

Architecture Differences

Both chips use Zen 5, but they are built on different processes and are different physical designs. The EPYC 9745 is codenamed Turin, part of the EPYC 9005 series, fabricated on TSMC's 3nm node. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX is codenamed Shimada Peak, part of the 9000 series, on TSMC's 4nm node. The EPYC's transistor count and die size are not listed; the Threadripper's is explicitly 66,520 million transistors across 8x 70.6 mm² dies.

Core counts are the headline: 128 vs. 64, threads 256 vs. 128. Cache differs in L1 (80KB per core vs. 64KB per core), but L2 is identical (1MB per core) and L3 is the same 256MB (shared for the EPYC, listed as 256MB for the Threadripper). The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5; the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC has a 400 TDP, the Threadripper 350 TDP.

Memory architecture diverges significantly: the EPYC has a twelve-channel memory bus delivering 576.0 GB/s, while the Threadripper has eight channels at 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 with ECC, and both have Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). Neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC's multiplier is locked; the Threadripper's is unlocked. Release dates differ: the EPYC launched 2024-10-09, the Threadripper 2025-07-22.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The EPYC 9745 has 128 cores and 256 threads, versus 64 cores and 128 threads on the Threadripper PRO 9985WX.

Q: Is the Threadripper faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: Yes. PassMark single-thread scores are 4482 for the Threadripper versus 2806 for the EPYC, a 37.4% advantage. Cinebench single-core tests also favor the Threadripper by 16.4% across R15, R20, and R23.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench multi-core?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins all three—R15 (13392 vs. 11198), R20 (55800 vs. 46659), and R23 (132859 vs. 111093)—each by 16.4%. Despite fewer cores, its higher clocks and architecture win out in these benchmarks.

Q: What about memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9745 has a twelve-channel bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 with ECC.

Q: Are these CPUs overclockable?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier. The EPYC 9745 does not (multiplier unlocked: false).

Q: Which one has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The EPYC 9745 has a launch MSRP of $12141. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has a launch MSRP of $7999.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive wins belong to the EPYC 9745 in pure data throughput. PassMark data encryption shows 229447 vs. 154824, a 48.2% lead. Integer math is 1224315 vs. 872710 (40.3%), and floating-point math is 761219 vs. 553348 (37.6%). Random string sorting is 468975 vs. 329014 (42.5%), data compression 3929890 vs. 2912972 (34.9%), and extended instructions 280477 vs. 225340 (24.5%). Physics processing is 17122 vs. 13783 (24.2%). These are the EPYC's territory: seven wins, all by more than 24%.

The Threadripper's wins are equally emphatic in its own lanes. Every Cinebench test—R15 multicore (13392 vs. 11198), R15 singlecore (1890 vs. 1580), R20 multicore (55800 vs. 46659), R20 singlecore (7877 vs. 6586), R23 multicore (132859 vs. 111093), R23 singlecore (18756 vs. 15683)—shows the same 16.4% margin. PassMark multithread is 150071 vs. 130698 (12.9%), find prime numbers 1138 vs. 979 (14%), and the single-thread tests show 4482 vs. 2806 (37.4%). Ten wins total.

Notice what the head-to-head reveals: the EPYC's wins are in specialized math and data operations, while the Threadripper sweeps the general-purpose Cinebench suite and the aggregate multithread test. The PassMark multithread result (Threadripper ahead by 12.9%) is particularly telling—it suggests that the Threadripper's per-core efficiency, driven by up to 5.40 GHz boost, compensates for half the core count in a mixed workload. The EPYC's 3.70 GHz boost cap limits its responsiveness in less-than-perfectly-scaled tasks.

The single-thread gap (37.4%) is the largest delta in the entire comparison, and it explains the Threadripper's Cinebench dominance—those benchmarks scale well with clock speed. Conversely, the encryption and integer math wins show the EPYC's 128 cores crushing the Threadripper's 64 in embarrassingly parallel operations, despite the clock disadvantage.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD EPYC 9745 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX |

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

| Cores | 128 | 64 |

| Threads | 256 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 400 | 350 |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 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 | 256 MB (shared) | 256 MB |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Eight-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Launch MSRP | $12141 | $7999 |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-07-22 |

The specification table shows two opposite design philosophies. The EPYC packs more cores, more cache per core (L1), and wider memory—at the cost of lower clocks and a locked multiplier. The Threadripper halves the core count, raises clocks dramatically (5.40 vs. 3.70 GHz boost), adds an unlocked multiplier, and still offers 256MB L3. Process node differs too: 3nm for the EPYC, 4nm for the Threadripper. Both have 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes (CPU only), both support DDR5 with ECC, and neither has integrated graphics. The EPYC's 400 TDP is higher than the Threadripper's 350, reflecting the core count. Socket compatibility is separate—SP5 for EPYC, sTR5 for Threadripper—so you cannot swap a motherboard between them.