AMD EPYC 9845 vs AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X Comparison

The AMD EPYC 9845 and the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X represent two distinct extremes within AMD’s Zen 5 lineup, a server behemoth designed for massive parallel throughput and a high-frequency desktop flagship built for responsiveness. Both processors share the same fundamental Zen 5 architecture, yet the data reveals a stark contrast in their design goals: the 160-core EPYC dominates heavily threaded server workloads, while the 64-core Threadripper consistently wins in single-threaded tests and even edges out a narrow victory in Cinebench multi-core benchmarks. The benchmark results show a near-total split, with the EPYC winning 9 of 17 tests and the Threadripper winning 8, but the margin of victory in each direction tells the real story of these two very different platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD EPYC 9845 has 160 cores and 320 threads, while the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X has 64 cores and 128 threads. The EPYC offers exactly 2.5 times the core count and thread count of the Threadripper.

Q: How do their single-core performance scores compare?

A: The Threadripper 9980X wins all single-core benchmarks. In PassMark single-thread testing, it scores 4537 compared to the EPYC’s 3144, a 30.7% advantage. The Cinebench R23 single-core results are closer, with the Threadripper at 18427 versus the EPYC’s 18358, a 0.4% difference.

Q: Which chip has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The EPYC 9845 offers 576.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth through a twelve-channel memory bus. The Threadripper 9980X provides 204.8 GB/s via a quad-channel bus, meaning the EPYC has roughly 2.8 times the theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: What are the maximum boost clocks for each processor?

A: The Threadripper 9980X has a significantly higher boost clock of 5.40 GHz, while the EPYC 9845 boosts to 3.70 GHz. The base clocks also differ, with the Threadripper at 3.20 GHz and the EPYC at 2.10 GHz.

Q: In which test does the EPYC 9845 show its largest margin of victory?

A: The EPYC 9845 achieves its biggest win in the PassMark physics test, scoring 19631 against the Threadripper’s 8001. This represents a 145.4% advantage for the EPYC.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. The Threadripper 9980X has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The EPYC 9845 does not have an unlocked multiplier, keeping it locked for server stability.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental architectural difference between these two CPUs lies in their core configurations and process nodes. The EPYC 9845, codenamed Turin, is built on a 3 nm process at TSMC and features 160 Zen 5c cores. The Threadripper 9980X, codenamed Shimada Peak, uses a 4 nm process at TSMC with 64 full-size Zen 5 cores. This explains why the Threadripper’s die size is listed as 8x 70.6 mm² with 66,520 million transistors, while the EPYC’s die size and transistor count are not specified.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The EPYC provides 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 320 MB of shared L3 cache. The Threadripper offers 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 256 MB of L3. The EPYC’s larger L3 cache aligns with its server role, where massive datasets benefit from a larger shared pool.

Memory architecture is another clear divider. The EPYC uses a twelve-channel DDR5 memory controller with 576.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Threadripper uses a quad-channel design with 204.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the EPYC’s wider bus is designed to feed 160 cores without starvation. PCIe connectivity also scales with the core count: the EPYC provides 128 Gen 5 lanes, while the Threadripper offers 80 Gen 5 lanes.

Socket compatibility separates the platforms entirely. The EPYC uses AMD Socket SP5, the server platform, while the Threadripper uses AMD Socket sTR5, the high-end desktop socket. The Threadripper’s base and boost clocks are substantially higher (3.20 GHz and 5.40 GHz vs. 2.10 GHz and 3.70 GHz), reflecting its desktop orientation, though both draw significant power: the EPYC has a 390 W TDP, and the Threadripper has a 350 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite presents a fascinating case where the 64-core Threadripper matches or slightly beats the 160-core EPYC in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Threadripper scores 130529 against the EPYC’s 130037, a 0.4% advantage. This pattern repeats across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, with the Threadripper winning each by 0.4% despite having 96 fewer cores. The single-core Cinebench results are equally close, with the Threadripper leading by 0.4% in every case.

The PassMark suite flips the script dramatically. In integer math, the EPYC scores 1687531 versus the Threadripper’s 872071, a 93.5% advantage. Floating-point math shows a 75% lead for the EPYC (978377 vs. 559003). Data compression results are even more lopsided, with the EPYC at 4680013 compared to 2974534, a 57.3% difference. The EPYC’s 160 cores provide massive parallel throughput in these integer-heavy workloads.

The physics test is where the EPYC’s lead becomes extraordinary. It scores 19631 versus the Threadripper’s 8001, a 145.4% advantage. Data encryption also favors the EPYC decisively, with a score of 296808 against 157137, an 88.9% lead. Random string sorting shows the EPYC ahead by 84.2% (538060 vs. 292083). Prime number finding favors the EPYC by 63.2% (1255 vs. 769), and extended instructions see a 37.5% EPYC advantage (314798 vs. 228959).

The Threadripper’s only PassMark win comes in single-thread performance, where it scores 4537 versus the EPYC’s 3144, a 30.7% lead. The PassMark multithread score is closer, with the EPYC winning by only 8% (152985 vs. 141641). Overall, the EPYC wins 9 benchmarks and the Threadripper wins 8, but the EPYC’s victories are often by 60-145%, while the Threadripper’s wins are mostly by 0.4% margins, except for the single-thread score.

The Verdict

For server and data center workloads that scale across many cores, the EPYC 9845 is the definitive choice. Its 160 cores deliver 93.5% higher integer math scores and 75% higher floating-point math scores than the Threadripper. When the task is highly parallelizable—encryption, compression, physics simulation, or prime number finding—the EPYC’s advantage is overwhelming, ranging from 37.5% to 145.4%. The twelve-channel memory bus and 320 MB L3 cache are purpose-built to keep all those cores fed, and the 128 PCIe Gen 5 lanes support large-scale I/O demands.

For desktop and workstation users, the Threadripper 9980X offers a different value proposition. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and 3.20 GHz base clock provide a 30.7% single-thread performance advantage over the EPYC. More surprisingly, the Threadripper edges out the EPYC in every Cinebench multi-core test, albeit by a mere 0.4%. For users whose workloads include a mix of single-threaded and moderately parallel tasks, the Threadripper’s 64 cores are sufficient, and its higher clock speeds make it more responsive in interactive scenarios.

The choice hinges on scale. The data shows that any workload that can utilize more than 64 cores will see massive gains on the EPYC, while those that cannot will see the Threadripper’s clock speed advantage. The EPYC’s 8% multithread lead in PassMark, combined with its massive wins in math and encryption, indicates it excels in throughput-heavy environments. The Threadripper’s performance in Cinebench, which favors shorter, bursty workloads, suggests it is better suited for content creation and development tasks where per-core speed matters more than raw core count.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD EPYC 9845 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 9980X |

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

| Cores | 160 | 64 |

| Threads | 320 | 128 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 390 W | 350 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket SP5 | AMD Socket sTR5 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 4 nm |

| Transistors | Not specified | 66,520 million |

| Die Size | Not specified | 8x 70.6 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 320 MB (shared) | 256 MB |

| Memory Bus | Twelve-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 576.0 GB/s | 204.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 128 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 80 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2024-10-09 | 2025-07-29 |

| Launch MSRP | $13564 | $4999 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Part Number | 100-000001458 | 100-000001593 |

| Codename | Turin | Shimada Peak |

| Generation | EPYC (Zen 5c (Turin)) | Ryzen Threadripper (Zen 5 (Shimada Peak)) |