AMD EPYC 9755 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX Comparison

AMD EPYC 9755 and AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX are both Zen 5 parts, but they target different corners of the professional market. The EPYC 9755 is a 128-core server behemoth built for density and throughput, while the Threadripper PRO 9985WX is a 64-core workstation chip with a much higher boost clock. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear split: the EPYC wins 15 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the Threadripper takes the two single-threaded PassMark tests by a wide margin. This page breaks down where each chip dominates, what the architecture differences mean, and who should choose which based solely on the database results.

Where Each One Wins

The EPYC 9755 is the clear winner in almost every multi-threaded and compute-heavy workload. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it wins both single-core and multi-core tests, with a consistent 6.4% lead across all six Cinebench runs. The PassMark suite shows even larger gaps: the EPYC leads by 55.1% in data compression, 84% in data encryption, 79.9% in prime number finding, 66.8% in floating point math, 77.6% in integer math, and 73.6% in random string sorting. It also wins PassMark multithread by 10.8% and physics by 101.7%, meaning it is more than twice as fast in the physics test.

The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins only the PassMark single-thread test (and its duplicate singlethread entry), with a score of 4482 versus 3503, a 21.8% advantage. That is a significant single-core edge, but it does not translate into wins in any Cinebench single-core test, where the EPYC actually leads by 6.4% each time. So the Threadripper’s single-thread win is specific to PassMark’s methodology, not a general pattern across all single-thread benchmarks.

The use-case split is straightforward: the EPYC 9755 is for parallel workloads that scale across 128 cores and 256 threads, while the Threadripper 9985WX is for tasks that depend on very high per-core frequency, such as certain legacy or lightly threaded applications. The data shows the EPYC is the better all-rounder, but the Threadripper has a specialized strength that may matter for specific workflows.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs use the Zen 5 architecture on TSMC’s 4 nm process, but they are built from different packages. The EPYC 9755, codenamed Turin, uses 16 chiplets, each with a 70.6 mm² die size, totaling 133,040 million transistors. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX, codenamed Shimada Peak, uses 8 chiplets of the same 70.6 mm² size, with 66,520 million transistors. The EPYC has exactly double the cores (128 versus 64) and double the threads (256 versus 128), which explains most of its multi-threaded advantage.

Cache configurations differ as well. The EPYC 9755 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 512 MB of shared L3. The Threadripper has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. The EPYC’s larger L1 per core and double the L3 are direct consequences of having more chiplets, and they contribute to its superior throughput in cache-sensitive workloads like data compression and integer math.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 9755 uses a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses eight channels with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory, and both have 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes from the CPU. The EPYC’s higher memory bandwidth is critical for server workloads that stream large datasets, while the Threadripper’s lower bandwidth is still substantial for workstation tasks.

Clock speeds are the main architectural difference in the other direction. The Threadripper has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 5.40 GHz, versus the EPYC’s 2.70 GHz base and 4.10 GHz boost. That 1.30 GHz boost advantage is what drives the Threadripper’s PassMark single-thread win, even though the EPYC wins Cinebench single-core tests. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, while the EPYC is locked. The EPYC has a TDP of 500 W, the Threadripper 350 W, and they use different sockets: SP5 for the EPYC, sTR5 for the Threadripper.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are remarkably consistent. In R15 multi-core, the EPYC scores 14250 versus 13392, a 6.4% win. The same 6.4% delta appears in R15 single-core (2011 versus 1890), R20 multi-core (59378 versus 55800), R20 single-core (8382 versus 7877), R23 multi-core (141378 versus 132859), and R23 single-core (19959 versus 18756). This uniformity suggests the EPYC’s advantage is architectural, not workload-specific, and it holds across both single- and multi-threaded Cinebench tests despite the Threadripper’s higher boost clock.

The PassMark suite tells a different story. The largest EPYC win is in physics, where it scores 27806 versus 13783, a 101.7% margin. That is more than double the Threadripper’s result. Integer math shows a 77.6% lead (1549946 versus 872710), random string sorting a 73.6% lead (571185 versus 329014), and floating point math a 66.8% lead (922900 versus 553348). Data encryption is close behind at 84% (284927 versus 154824), and prime number finding is at 79.9% (2047 versus 1138). Data compression is 55.1% (4517407 versus 2912972), and extended instructions are 34.6% (303321 versus 225340). Even the PassMark multithread test, which is closest to a real-world parallel workload, shows a 10.8% EPYC win (166328 versus 150071).

The Threadripper’s only wins are in PassMark single-thread, where it scores 4482 versus 3503, a 21.8% lead. That is a large margin, but it does not appear in any other benchmark, including Cinebench single-core. So the data indicates the Threadripper’s boost clock helps in PassMark’s specific single-thread workload, but not in Cinebench’s rendering-based single-thread test.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9755 has 128 cores and 256 threads. The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has 64 cores and 128 threads. The EPYC has exactly double the core and thread count.

Q: Why does the EPYC 9755 win so many benchmarks despite the Threadripper’s higher boost clock?

A: The EPYC has 128 cores versus 64, 512 MB of L3 versus 256 MB, and 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus 409.6 GB/s. The Threadripper’s boost clock is 5.40 GHz versus 4.10 GHz, but that only helps in the PassMark single-thread test, not in Cinebench or other multi-threaded workloads.

Q: What is the biggest single benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark physics, where the EPYC 9755 scores 27806 versus 13783, a 101.7% advantage. That means the EPYC is more than twice as fast in that test.

Q: Does the Threadripper win any multi-threaded tests?

A: No. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX wins only the PassMark single-thread test (and its singlethread duplicate). All multi-threaded Cinebench and PassMark tests are won by the EPYC 9755.

Q: Are both CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use Zen 5 architecture on TSMC’s 4 nm process. The EPYC has 16 chiplets and 133,040 million transistors, while the Threadripper has 8 chiplets and 66,520 million transistors.

Q: Which CPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9755 has a twelve-channel memory bus with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX has an eight-channel bus with 409.6 GB/s. Both support DDR5 and ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for most workloads. The AMD EPYC 9755 is the superior processor for any task that scales with cores, threads, cache, or memory bandwidth. It wins 15 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench test and every multi-threaded PassMark test. The margins are often massive, from 34.6% in extended instructions to 101.7% in physics. Its 128 cores, 512 MB of L3, and 576.0 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the clear choice for server virtualization, database processing, scientific computing, and any high-throughput parallel workload.

The AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX has one distinct advantage: a 21.8% lead in PassMark single-thread performance, driven by its 5.40 GHz boost clock. That makes it a contender for lightly threaded applications where per-core speed matters more than core count. However, the EPYC actually wins Cinebench single-core tests by 6.4%, so the Threadripper’s single-thread superiority is not universal. The Threadripper also has an unlocked multiplier, which may appeal to users who plan to overclock, but the database does not include overclocked results.

For pure performance per the recorded benchmarks, the EPYC 9755 is the winner in nearly every category. The Threadripper PRO 9985WX is only preferable if the specific workload is dominated by PassMark-style single-thread operations and the user values that 21.8% edge above all else. Otherwise, the EPYC’s overwhelming multi-threaded lead and consistent Cinebench wins make it the recommended choice for server and workstation deployment.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9755 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9985WX |

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

| Cores | 128 | 64 |

| Threads | 256 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.70 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 500 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

| Transistors | 133,040 million | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | 16x 70.6 mm² | 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 | 512 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 | $12984 | $7999 |