AMD EPYC 9754 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD EPYC 9754 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X reveals a clear division of labor. The EPYC 9754, a 128-core Bergamo part, dominates the throughput-heavy workloads, while the Threadripper 9970X, with 32 faster Zen 5 cores, takes the single-threaded and lightly threaded tests. The data records seven wins for the EPYC 9754 and four for the Threadripper 9970X.

The most lopsided result belongs to PassMark data encryption. The EPYC 9754 scores 231,891 against the Threadripper's 86,765, a delta of 167.3% in favor of the server chip. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire head-to-head set. Integer math follows a similar pattern, with the EPYC 9754 posting 1,026,896 versus 465,378, a 120.7% advantage. Both workloads scale aggressively with core count and memory bandwidth, which favors the 128-core EPYC part.

Data compression shows the same trend. The EPYC 9754 records 3,558,043, more than double the Threadripper's 1,757,998, for a 102.4% lead. Floating-point math also goes decisively to the EPYC 9754: 588,187 against 309,719, a 89.9% difference. The EPYC's 256 MB of shared L3 cache and twelve-channel DDR5 memory bus give it a structural advantage in these streaming workloads.

Random string sorting is another EPYC win, with 306,481 versus 191,445, a 60.1% margin. Extended instructions follow at 57.6%, with the EPYC scoring 224,322 against 142,342. The physics test is closer in percentage terms but still favors the EPYC, 8,793 to 6,835, a 28.6% advantage. These results consistently show that any workload that can spread across many cores will favor the EPYC 9754.

The Threadripper 9970X answers with single-thread performance. PassMark single-thread shows the Threadripper at 4,530 versus the EPYC's 2,328, which is a 48.6% advantage for the Threadripper. This is the EPYC's worst relative result in the set. The Threadripper's 5.40 GHz boost clock, compared to the EPYC's 3.10 GHz, explains the gap. The same delta appears in the duplicate passmark_singlethread entry, confirming the measurement.

The Threadripper also wins PassMark multithread, despite having only a quarter of the cores. It scores 107,399 against the EPYC's 98,752, an 8.1% margin. This is notable because the multithread test does not scale purely with core count; it rewards higher per-core throughput and lower scheduling overhead. The Threadripper's Zen 5 architecture and 4.00 GHz base clock allow it to outrun the EPYC in this specific metric.

The final Threadripper win is find prime numbers, where it scores 615 versus 604, a 1.8% margin. This is the narrowest difference in the entire comparison. The test is short and latency-sensitive, so the Threadripper's higher clock speed gives it a small but consistent edge.

Looking at the broader database context, the EPYC 9754 sits at the 100th percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 364,371. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon 6960P at 365,194 (−0.2%), the AMD EPYC 9655 at 373,479 (−2.4%), and the AMD EPYC 9535 at 379,408 (−4%). The EPYC 9754 trails the Xeon 6960P by only 0.2%, which puts it in the same performance tier as the fastest server parts in the database. The Threadripper 9970X holds the 99th percentile, with an average score of 279,778. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon 6780E at 280,438 (−0.2%), the AMD EPYC 9565 at 285,471 (−2%), and the Intel Xeon 696X at 286,102 (−2.2%). The Threadripper's 30% gap to the EPYC 9754 in average score is substantial, but it reflects the different design goals of the two parts.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to two distinct use cases. The AMD EPYC 9754 is the choice for workloads that scale across many cores and benefit from massive memory bandwidth. Its 102.4% lead in data compression, 120.7% lead in integer math, and 167.3% lead in encryption make it the clear winner for database, virtualization, and batch processing environments. The 100th percentile ranking and average score of 364,371 place it at the top of the database's CPU hierarchy.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X is the better pick for single-threaded and lightly threaded tasks. Its 48.6% lead in single-thread performance is the largest margin in either direction outside the EPYC's encryption win. The multithread result, where the Threadripper beats the EPYC by 8.1% despite having 96 fewer cores, suggests that software with moderate parallelism will run better on the Threadripper. The 99th percentile ranking confirms it is still a top-tier part, but its average score of 279,778 is 30% below the EPYC.

For a user running primarily integer-heavy, compression-heavy, or encryption-heavy server workloads, the EPYC 9754 is the defensible choice. For a workstation user running interactive applications, compilation tasks, or software that does not scale past 32 threads, the Threadripper 9970X offers better per-thread performance. The two parts do not compete for the same buyer; they address different ends of the AMD portfolio.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread score?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9970X scores 4,530 in PassMark single-thread, which is 48.6% higher than the AMD EPYC 9754's 2,328.

Q: How large is the EPYC 9754's advantage in data encryption?

A: The EPYC 9754 scores 231,891 in PassMark data encryption, a 167.3% lead over the Threadripper 9970X's 86,765.

Q: Does the Threadripper 9970X win any throughput-oriented benchmarks?

A: Yes, the Threadripper 9970X wins PassMark multithread with 107,399 versus the EPYC's 98,752, an 8.1% margin, despite having far fewer cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The EPYC 9754 has an average benchmark score of 364,371, while the Threadripper 9970X has an average of 279,778.

Q: How do the two processors rank against all CPUs in the database?

A: The EPYC 9754 is at the 100th percentile, and the Threadripper 9970X is at the 99th percentile.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The EPYC 9754 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Threadripper 9970X has 128 MB.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The EPYC 9754 provides 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Threadripper 9970X provides 32 cores and 64 threads. The EPYC's base clock is 2.25 GHz, rising to 3.10 GHz boost, compared to the Threadripper's 4.00 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. Thermal design power is close: 360 W for the EPYC and 350 W for the Threadripper.

The EPYC 9754 uses the AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper 9970X uses the AMD Socket sTR5. The EPYC supports twelve-channel DDR5 memory with a bandwidth of 460.8 GB/s; the Threadripper supports quad-channel DDR5 with a bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the EPYC offering Gen 5, 128 lanes (CPU only) and the Threadripper offering Gen 5, 80 lanes (CPU only).

The EPYC 9754 has a launch MSRP of $11900. The Threadripper 9970X has a launch MSRP of $2499. The multiplier is locked on the EPYC and unlocked on the Threadripper. The market segments differ as well: the EPYC is classified as Server/Workstation, while the Threadripper is classified as Desktop. Transistor counts are 71,000 million for the EPYC and 33,260 million for the Threadripper.

Architecture Differences

The EPYC 9754 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Bergamo codename, manufactured on a 5 nm process at TSMC. The Threadripper 9970X uses Zen 5 architecture with the Shimada Peak codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. The die configurations differ: the EPYC uses 8x 73 mm² dies, while the Threadripper uses 4x 70.6 mm² dies.

The cache hierarchy is similar in the per-core levels, with both parts offering 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The shared L3 differs: the EPYC has 256 MB shared, while the Threadripper has 128 MB. Neither part includes 3D V-Cache. Both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory, but the EPYC uses a twelve-channel memory bus versus the Threadripper's quad-channel bus, which explains the bandwidth difference.

The process node difference (5 nm for the EPYC, 4 nm for the Threadripper) and the architecture generation difference (Zen 4c versus Zen 5) account for the Threadripper's higher clock speeds. The EPYC compensates with four times the cores and double the L3 cache. The Threadripper has no integrated graphics, and the EPYC lists no integrated graphics either. Both are Active in production status. The release dates differ by roughly two years, with the EPYC released on 2023-06-12 and the Threadripper on 2025-07-29.