AMD EPYC 9754 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX Comparison

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX and the AMD EPYC 9754 represent two distinct approaches to high-core-count computing. While both processors anchor AMD’s professional lineup, the benchmark data reveals a clear split in their performance profiles. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX dominates the majority of tests, winning 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the EPYC 9754 secures a single, but notable, victory. This analysis breaks down those results, examines the architectural reasons behind them, and outlines the use cases where each processor excels based strictly on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the Threadripper PRO 9995WX’s overwhelming lead in Cinebench tests. Across all six Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmarks, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX holds a consistent 77% advantage over the EPYC 9754. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 148,601 against the EPYC’s 83,939. The same 77% delta appears in single-core tests, with the Threadripper posting 20,979 in R23 single-core versus 11,850 for the EPYC. This uniformity suggests a fundamental per-core performance gap rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The PassMark suite tells a more nuanced story. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins 10 of the 11 PassMark tests, but the margins vary widely. Its largest victory comes in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 1,476 versus the EPYC’s 604 — a 144.4% delta. The physics test also shows a massive gap, with the Threadripper ahead by 91.7% (16,860 vs 8,793). Single-thread performance is similarly lopsided: the Threadripper’s 4,542 score is 95.1% higher than the EPYC’s 2,328.

Other PassMark victories are more modest but still decisive. The Threadripper leads by 36.7% in random string sorting (418,973 vs 306,481) and by 23.3% in floating point math (725,066 vs 588,187). Integer math shows a 17.2% edge for the Threadripper (1,203,634 vs 1,026,896), while extended instructions come in at 20.7% ahead (270,647 vs 224,322). The closest race in the entire comparison is PassMark data compression, where the Threadripper wins by just 4.7% (3,723,652 vs 3,558,043).

The single exception to this pattern is PassMark data encryption. Here, the EPYC 9754 takes the win with a score of 231,891 against the Threadripper’s 206,662, a 10.9% advantage. This is the only test where the EPYC’s higher core count appears to translate directly into superior throughput. Notably, the multi-threaded PassMark score for the Threadripper (171,200) is 73.4% higher than the EPYC’s (98,752), reinforcing that the Threadripper’s wins are not limited to lightly threaded workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks overall?

A: The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX wins 16 of the 17 head-to-head benchmark comparisons, while the AMD EPYC 9754 wins only one.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest delta is in PassMark find prime numbers, where the Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 1476, which is 144.4% higher than the EPYC 9754’s score of 604.

Q: Is there any workload where the EPYC 9754 outperforms the Threadripper PRO 9995WX?

A: Yes, the EPYC 9754 wins the PassMark data encryption test, scoring 231,891 versus the Threadripper’s 206,662, a 10.9% advantage.

Q: How does the multi-core performance compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX scores 148,601 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 77% higher than the EPYC 9754’s score of 83,939.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: In both PassMark single-thread and single-threaded Cinebench tests, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX leads by approximately 77% to 95.1%. For example, in PassMark single-thread, the Threadripper scores 4,542 versus the EPYC’s 2,328.

Q: How close is the average benchmark score between the two?

A: The Threadripper PRO 9995WX has an average benchmark score of 412,068, while the EPYC 9754 has an average score of 364,371.

Where Each One Wins

The Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the clear winner for any workload that relies on raw compute speed per thread. Its 77% lead across all Cinebench versions indicates exceptional performance in rendering and other heavily threaded creative applications that scale well with core speed. The PassMark physics result (91.7% ahead) and find prime numbers result (144.4% ahead) point to strengths in scientific simulation and integer-heavy calculations. Even in memory-sensitive tasks like random string sorting, the Threadripper’s 36.7% lead suggests it handles data shuffling more efficiently.

The EPYC 9754’s sole victory in data encryption is significant. This test often benefits from parallel encryption algorithms that scale with core count, and the EPYC’s 128 cores provide a tangible advantage here. The EPYC also shows respectable performance in data compression, trailing by only 4.7%, which indicates it can hold its own in archiving and storage-related tasks. For server environments that handle encrypted network traffic or storage encryption, the EPYC 9754’s edge in this specific area could be a deciding factor.

For general multi-threaded throughput, the Threadripper’s PassMark multithread score of 171,200 versus the EPYC’s 98,752 (a 73.4% delta) makes it the more capable processor for tasks like video encoding, 3D rendering, and complex data analysis. The Threadripper also wins in integer math (17.2% ahead) and floating point math (23.3% ahead), covering a broad range of numerical computing. However, the EPYC’s higher core count and twelve-channel memory bus provide a foundation for server-specific workloads that prioritize raw core availability over per-core speed.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count: the EPYC 9754 packs 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Threadripper PRO 9995WX offers 96 cores and 192 threads. Clock speeds reverse this advantage. The Threadripper has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, whereas the EPYC operates at 2.25 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. The Threadripper’s significantly higher boost clock directly explains its dominance in single-threaded and lightly threaded benchmarks.

Cache configurations also differ. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX includes 384 MB of L3 cache, while the EPYC 9754 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. Memory channels vary: the Threadripper uses eight-channel DDR5 with 409.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the EPYC uses twelve-channel DDR5 with 460.8 GB/s bandwidth. The EPYC’s higher memory bandwidth is notable, though it did not translate into wins in the benchmark suite.

The processors use different sockets: the Threadripper requires AMD Socket sTR5, while the EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5. The Threadripper has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the EPYC’s multiplier is locked. The EPYC 9754 has a TDP of 360, which is higher than the Threadripper’s 350. Both support ECC memory and feature Gen 5 PCIe with 128 lanes (CPU only). The Threadripper PRO 9995WX has a launch MSRP of $11700, while the EPYC 9754 has a launch MSRP of $11900.

Architecture Differences

The Threadripper PRO 9995WX is built on the Zen 5 architecture, codenamed Shimada Peak, and manufactured on a 4 nm TSMC process. It contains 99,780 million transistors across 12 dies, each measuring 70.6 mm². This newer architecture is the primary driver of its higher clock speeds and superior per-core performance. The Zen 5 design appears to deliver roughly 77% more performance in Cinebench workloads compared to the EPYC’s older design.

The EPYC 9754 uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Bergamo, on a 5 nm TSMC process. It has 71,000 million transistors spread across 8 dies, each 73 mm² in size. The “4c” designation typically indicates a denser, more power-efficient variant of Zen 4, optimized for high core counts rather than maximum clock speed. This explains the EPYC’s 128-core configuration at the cost of a 3.10 GHz boost clock ceiling.

Both processors come from AMD and support DDR5 memory with ECC. The Threadripper is part of the 9000 series and the Ryzen Threadripper generation, while the EPYC belongs to the 9004 series and the EPYC generation. The Threadripper’s release date is listed as 2025-07-22, while the EPYC’s is 2023-06-12, making the Threadripper a newer design by roughly two years. The EPYC has a twelve-channel memory bus versus the Threadripper’s eight-channel, which gives the EPYC a theoretical bandwidth advantage of 460.8 GB/s versus 409.6 GB/s, though this did not yield a benchmark win outside of encryption.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split in intended use. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the superior processor for virtually every benchmark in this comparison. Its 77% lead in all Cinebench tests, combined with massive wins in PassMark physics (91.7%) and prime numbers (144.4%), makes it the obvious choice for workstations handling rendering, simulation, and complex computational tasks. The Threadripper’s 4.7% edge in data compression and 36.7% lead in random string sorting further indicate strong all-around performance. Its average benchmark score of 412,068, which is 3.3% above the AMD EPYC 9745 and 3.6% above the AMD EPYC 9655P, places it at the top of its immediate competitive set.

The AMD EPYC 9754 is not without merit, but its strengths are narrower. Its 10.9% win in data encryption is the standout result, and its 128 cores and twelve-channel memory bandwidth position it for server deployments where encryption throughput and raw core count matter more than per-core speed. The EPYC’s average benchmark score of 364,371 is within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon 6960P, showing it is competitive in its own right. However, it trails the Threadripper by 13.1% in average score.

For a workstation user who needs maximum performance across a diverse range of professional applications, the Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the data-backed choice. The EPYC 9754 makes sense specifically for server environments where its encryption advantage and higher core count are the priority, and where the 77% deficit in Cinebench-style workloads is acceptable. The benchmark results are decisive: 16 wins for the Threadripper, one for the EPYC. The Threadripper PRO 9995WX is the faster processor in nearly every measurable category, and the EPYC 9754 is a specialized tool for a specific, encryption-heavy workload.