AMD EPYC 9754 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

This comparison pits two very different AMD workstation and server processors against each other: the EPYC 9754, a 128-core Bergamo part built for massive throughput, and the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, a 64-core Zen 5 part aimed at high-frequency workstation tasks. The data shows a clear split: the EPYC wins in raw parallel data processing, while the Threadripper dominates in nearly every other benchmark category, including all Cinebench tests and most single-threaded workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD EPYC 9754 is the clear winner in tasks that involve heavy data manipulation and encryption. It takes the PassMark data compression test with a score of 3,558,043 against 2,912,972 for the Threadripper PRO 9985WX, a 22.1% advantage. The gap is even wider in data encryption, where the EPYC scores 231,891 versus 154,824, a 49.8% lead. The EPYC also wins in floating-point math (588,187 vs 553,348, a 6.3% edge) and integer math (1,026,896 vs 872,710, a 17.7% edge). These wins point to the EPYC 9754 being the better choice for data-center-style workloads, database processing, and scientific computing that can use all 128 cores.

The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX, by contrast, wins 13 of the 17 head-to-head benchmarks. Its most dominant victories come in single-threaded performance: a 48.1% lead in PassMark single-thread (4,482 vs 2,328) and a 36.8% lead across all Cinebench tests, including a 132,859 score in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the EPYC's 83,939. The Threadripper also wins in find prime numbers (1,138 vs 604, a 46.9% lead), physics simulation (13,783 vs 8,793, a 36.2% lead), and PassMark multi-thread (150,071 vs 98,752, a 34.2% lead). This makes it the clear choice for workstation users who need fast single-core response for interactive work, rendering, and code compilation.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different AMD generations and design philosophies. The EPYC 9754 uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Bergamo, built on a 5 nm process at TSMC. It packs 128 cores and 256 threads, with a base clock of 2.25 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX uses the newer Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, on a 4 nm process. It has half the cores (64) and threads (128) but runs much higher clocks: 3.20 GHz base and 5.40 GHz boost. That clock advantage is the primary driver of its single-thread dominance.

Both chips share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L2 cache (1 MB per core), and both have 256 MB of total L3 cache. The transistor counts are similar — 71,000 million for the EPYC versus 66,520 million for the Threadripper — and both use eight dies, with the EPYC at 8x 73 mm² and the Threadripper at 8x 70.6 mm². The EPYC is a server part on AMD Socket SP5, while the Threadripper uses Socket sTR5 for workstations. The EPYC has a twelve-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper has eight channels at 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both offer Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU.

The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC 9754 is locked. The EPYC was released on 2023-06-12, and the Threadripper on 2025-07-22. The EPYC has no integrated graphics, and the Threadripper lists N/A for integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU for display output.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins every Cinebench test by the same 36.8% margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 13,392 against 8,460 for the EPYC. In R20 multi-core, it posts 55,800 versus 35,254. The biggest absolute gap is in R23 multi-core: 132,859 versus 83,939. Single-core Cinebench scores follow the same pattern: R15 at 1,890 vs 1,194, R20 at 7,877 vs 4,977, and R23 at 18,756 vs 11,850. This consistent 36.8% delta across all Cinebench versions suggests a fundamental performance-per-clock advantage for the Zen 5 architecture, not just a clock-speed difference.

PassMark results are more varied. The EPYC 9754 wins four tests, with its largest victory in data encryption at 49.8% ahead. It also wins data compression by 22.1%, integer math by 17.7%, and floating-point math by 6.3%. The Threadripper wins the remaining PassMark tests, including extended instructions by a narrow 0.5% margin (225,340 vs 224,322), random string sorting by 6.8% (329,014 vs 306,481), and physics by 36.2% (13,783 vs 8,793). The PassMark multi-thread test goes to the Threadripper with 150,071 versus 98,752, despite the EPYC having twice the cores. This indicates the Threadripper's higher clocks and newer architecture more than compensate for the core deficit in most workloads.

In single-threaded PassMark, the Threadripper's 4,482 score is 48.1% higher than the EPYC's 2,328. The find prime numbers test shows a similar 46.9% advantage for the Threadripper (1,138 vs 604). These large single-thread deltas confirm that the Threadripper is substantially better for latency-sensitive tasks and interactive use.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores?

A: The AMD EPYC 9754 has 128 cores and 256 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads — exactly half.

Q: Why does the Threadripper win Cinebench R23 multi-core despite having fewer cores?

A: The Threadripper scores 132,859 versus 83,939 for the EPYC, a 36.8% lead. Its base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 5.40 GHz, combined with the Zen 5 architecture on a 4 nm process, overcome the EPYC's core-count advantage. The EPYC runs at just 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost.

Q: Where does the EPYC 9754 beat the Threadripper?

A: The EPYC wins four benchmarks: data compression (3,558,043 vs 2,912,972), data encryption (231,891 vs 154,824), floating-point math (588,187 vs 553,348), and integer math (1,026,896 vs 872,710). Its 12-channel memory bus with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth likely contributes to these data-heavy wins.

Q: What is the single-thread performance difference?

A: The Threadripper scores 4,482 in PassMark single-thread, which is 48.1% higher than the EPYC's 2,328. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Threadripper's 18,756 beats the EPYC's 11,850 by the same 36.8% margin seen in all Cinebench tests.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory and PCIe features?

A: Both support DDR5 memory and ECC memory, and both provide Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes from the CPU. The key difference is the memory bus: the EPYC uses twelve channels at 460.8 GB/s, while the Threadripper uses eight channels at 409.6 GB/s.

Q: Which CPU has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The EPYC 9754 has a launch MSRP of $11900. The Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has a launch MSRP of $7999.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward choice based on workload. If your work involves heavy data compression, encryption, or integer and floating-point math at massive scale, the EPYC 9754 is the better fit. Its 49.8% lead in encryption and 22.1% lead in compression show a clear advantage for data-center and scientific workloads that can be parallelized across 128 cores. Its average benchmark score of 364,371 is also higher than the Threadripper's 320,749, and it ranks at the 100th percentile against all CPUs, versus the Threadripper's 99th.

If you need a workstation CPU for rendering, simulation, code compilation, or any task that benefits from high single-thread performance, the Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the clear winner. It wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test by a consistent 36.8% margin. Its single-thread performance is 48.1% higher, and its multi-thread PassMark score of 150,071 beats the EPYC's 98,752 despite having half the cores. The unlocked multiplier also offers overclocking headroom, which the EPYC lacks.

The Threadripper's higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, combined with the newer Zen 5 architecture, makes it the more responsive processor for interactive use. The EPYC's advantage is strictly in throughput-oriented, memory-bandwidth-hungry workloads where its 12-channel memory bus and 128 cores can be fully utilized. For most workstation users, the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is the more versatile choice. For server deployments focused on data processing, the EPYC 9754's specific benchmark wins make it the more targeted tool.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9754 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX |

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

| Cores | 128 | 64 |

| Threads | 256 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.25 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.10 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 360 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen 5 |

| Codename | Bergamo | Shimada Peak |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | 71,000 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 8x 73 mm² | 8x 70.6 mm² |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 460.8 GB/s | 409.6 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | N/A |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2023-06-12 | 2025-07-22 |

| Launch MSRP | $11900 | $7999 |

| Part Number | 100-000001234 | 100-000000722 |